I don't think it's that simple. Let's go over these point by point:
I should add here right off the bat that not one of these things will prevent organised griefers from coming in en-masse and ruining the game. Not on it's own. The point is that
it's a combination, cumulative effect. I appreciate your points, but to take them one by one in isolation they can often easily be debunked (as you have done so). However...
- Instance limit of 32 players max.
Well, this means that all you need is 17 players and you're guaranteed a majority in an instance. A large org like the goons could easily put together multiple groups of 17 to control multiple instances or the primary instance of multiple systems, and nobody would be able to challenge them since it would be impossible to attack them with even equal numbers without being stuck in a different instance.
That's not how "instancing" works in E: D. But let's say it did... it would have the following knock on effects..
1) They would trigger an NPC response. 17 players are not going to be able to fly together and not pique the interest of the authorities to see what was afoot. This is part of the background simulation.
2) They would gain bounties & sooner or later will have to leave the safety of the hive & therefore be vulnerable
These two points alone are enough to deter most pilots.
- No territorial control possible.
- No player run markets.
- No manufacturing.
- No player owned persistent structures.
No recognized territorial control possible. But they've also said that the point where you exit hyperspace in an instance is fixed, and there could be 17 guys waiting for you there. Personally, I'd rather have these groups end up with actual control of a system and want to *protect and police it* so that other players want to go there, trade, and provide them with income, rather than just raiding and killing everyone. Worked for the Vikings. And Hamas, for that matter.
I wouldn't want that. That's what happens in EVE, and it sucks, frankly. Protection rackets? No thanks...
I'm not sure if where you exit hyperspace is 'fixed' as such, but it is around a star. It's quite hard to supercruise around a star, so even if you get someone show up in your instance, you may struggle to catch them.
- No player corporations / guilds.
No recognized corporations / guilds possible. What this means is that it is harder to organize a group ingame, giving the advantage to orgs which have been formed outside of the game or which are a preexisting organization. (Like the Goons.)
Yes, groups will form (or have formed) out of game. It doesn't mean they're able to exercise any power
in game though.
- Death outside Ironman is relatively painless.
...Not according to the general forum it isn't.
Well, there isn't really much I can say to that. When we were debating it in the DDF, I (along with a number of others) was strongly opposed to the cuddly death we have now, and it's perhaps one reason why we have Ironman which is closer to the spirit of the original Elite. Bottom line is, in "normal" mode you lose your ship and cargo. That's it. And you get insurance for your ship.
- Exponential bounty system and NPC response.
AFAIK the bounty system only applies in the jurisdiction where you gain the bounty. You can live in empire space and raid everywhere else. The exception is the pilot's federation bounty for player killers, but this doesn't have the same response as organization bounties. (You might get NPC bounty hunters, but FD says county hunters work alone.)
To be honest, I don't have a problem with that. Imperial raids into Federation space is the sort of thing that makes the background sim tick & is part of the lore of the game. Where I have a problem is the idea of a group of
players coming in and calling themselves "Sm@l1D!ckzC0rp" and attempting to exert the kind of control that is naturally NPC in nature. E: D has an evolving story around the NPC factions with a lot of background lore to back it up, and the fun will be seeing how that plays out & having the chance to influence that in a small way.
- Possible hiding of who is a player and who isn't.
Yeah... so, you hide your player status to hide from the PvP players, and get attacked everywhere by the PvE players instead?
Only if you have a bounty on your head.
- No player council to be influenced or controlled.
There are still developers to influence and control. Imagine 2000 sock puppets all showing up in the forum at once, to raise the same issue?
That would be quite a sight I agree.
However, the devs are not that dumb, trust me...
- Private groups
- Single player.
Eve can't be dominated by player orgs either, if you consider "not playing" a valid option.
Who said anything about "not playing"?
- Enormous galaxy.
I don't think we've really seen how enormous the *playable* part of the galaxy is, have we? The 400 billion systems number is far more than is actually playable since most of it isn't inhabitable.
I believe initially it will be somewhere in the region of 70,000 systems. Not being funny, but that will take an enormous amount of effort to "control" by players.
- A watchful player base, hardened by experiences in other games, who will not tolerate griefing.
Not sure what this player base is going to do when a stronger group can't get into the same instance as the troublemakers, and they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to organizing themselves due to the lack of ingame organizations.
As I said, they'll always be able to get into the instance, as any large player group flying together will trigger an NPC response from the background sim. As soon as shots start flying, they will step in appropriately. And unlike in Star Wars, there will be no question about who fired first.
- Ignore list which works on an account (not character) basis.
So... you're going to manually ignore *thousands* of players in an org, when you can't even tell that they're in that org ingame?
You just have to take it on a case by case basis. Remembering that the galaxy is huge, and even a group of 10,000 is still going to be very small in galactic terms.
Large player orgs have power. That's just a reality of multiplayer games. This is a good thing, because having players influence what's going on is sort of the point of playing multiplayer. The trick is to build systems that manipulate them into providing a positive experience for other players, and make your main feature an actual *benefit* instead of a negative.
Precisely why I signed up for the
First Great Expedition
A big part of that is allowing players to provide content for each other, and to expand the gamespace. What's the point of a horizonless, virtually infinite playspace if you can't *do* anything with the vast majority of it? And we're already seen the social problems that come out of not really having an endgame. Players with nowhere to progress to turn on each other. I, for one, hope that FD reconsider the lack of player territory control and economies, as it'll give endgame players and orgs something to *build up* and *work towards* rather than tear down and destroy out of sheer boredom.
For what it's worth, I think it will be reconsidered in time. David has spoken of his desire to see players owning structures, etc... but being understandably guarded as the game dynamic would obviously change. For now, expansion is handled via NPCs, and we can play a part in that. That's the "end game" for now.
There is also the whole socio-political structure of E: D's factions to play out, and who knows where that will take us, how involved we will be, and where that affects gameplay.
The whole end-game argument I've brought up before on here, and been shot down as not the right time, but you're right. Ultimately, having named a planet, I want to build a house there. That's
my end game.
