...and then we have a space sim that is ruled by corporate factions...sounds familiar, methinks...
Avoiding Group Control...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
- Status
...and then we have a space sim that is ruled by corporate factions...sounds familiar, methinks...
Are the "dedicated to ruin play for others"?
Totally this.
DB has covered this a few times, the whole ethos of ED is "One man, one ship" and owning stations/capital ships does not fit into this.
I think fighting them is the wrong way to go, that just plays into their hands. What tends to happen there is a lot of groups try to organise to fight back, but being disorganised and without a single dedicated leader with a good command structure the way GS has, it tends not to work.
I've seen some good mechanics solutions both here and the DDF convo on a similar subject and having the main factions get involved if there's too much disruption in a certain system seems like a decent mechanic.
Though I imagine GS would come into an area, dominate, control, and move on once reprisals become too hard. (Like an NPC battle-fleet moves in to engage).
I've seen some good mechanics solutions both here and the DDF convo on a similar subject and having the main factions get involved if there's too much disruption in a certain system seems like a decent mechanic.
Though I imagine GS would come into an area, dominate, control, and move on once reprisals become too hard. (Like an NPC battle-fleet moves in to engage).
Some are making the mistake of planning for the previous war, and not the upcoming one.
Goons have been successful in territorial control in EVE, but that does not mean that is the only way to "win" by their definition. Territorial control, owning stations, or most other options mooted here are not a requirement for disruptive gameplay.
As JeffRyan has said earlier, Goons will look for ways to disrupt the game and "win" by (ab)using the existing game mechanics, while staying inside the written ruleset - if not in spirit, at least in letter. That way they will have a moral high ground in arguments against their actions, plead ignorance, or at least have plausible deniability.
Granted, it will be very difficult to foresee what actions they could take. I posted a potential scenario for disruptive gameplay using the 32-player limit to Goons' advantage, and this tread from bitrogue paints a scenario which would put a large number of stations under a two-way blockade. Both arempossible with current gameplay mechanics AFAICT.
Perhaps more importanly, FD will have to think about their reaction to such gameplay prior to it arising, to be prepared. Hasty action and lack of strategy can lead to a PR disaster, distrust of GMs or FD, and in the worst case scenario, notable shift in gameplay and/or design goals. They will need to take decisive action when disruptive gameplay threatens the principles E: D is built upon. They also need to be prepared to step down when a false positive occurs - i.e. they think something nefarious is happening, when it is in fact emergent gameplay - so as to not disrupt the game from kneejerk reactions.
Goons have been successful in territorial control in EVE, but that does not mean that is the only way to "win" by their definition. Territorial control, owning stations, or most other options mooted here are not a requirement for disruptive gameplay.
As JeffRyan has said earlier, Goons will look for ways to disrupt the game and "win" by (ab)using the existing game mechanics, while staying inside the written ruleset - if not in spirit, at least in letter. That way they will have a moral high ground in arguments against their actions, plead ignorance, or at least have plausible deniability.
Granted, it will be very difficult to foresee what actions they could take. I posted a potential scenario for disruptive gameplay using the 32-player limit to Goons' advantage, and this tread from bitrogue paints a scenario which would put a large number of stations under a two-way blockade. Both arempossible with current gameplay mechanics AFAICT.
Perhaps more importanly, FD will have to think about their reaction to such gameplay prior to it arising, to be prepared. Hasty action and lack of strategy can lead to a PR disaster, distrust of GMs or FD, and in the worst case scenario, notable shift in gameplay and/or design goals. They will need to take decisive action when disruptive gameplay threatens the principles E: D is built upon. They also need to be prepared to step down when a false positive occurs - i.e. they think something nefarious is happening, when it is in fact emergent gameplay - so as to not disrupt the game from kneejerk reactions.
Last edited:
Meanwhile, a short time ago in Buffoonswarm HQ.
Buffonswarm CEO has called together the top brass to discuss future policy and plans for the BSF.
CEO: Right peep’s. We know EvE is broke, we control over half of the territory and quite frankly there’s nothing left for the guys to do.
Assorted grumbles and nods of agreement from around the room.
CEO: So today I launch Operation Elite Dominate. Were going to go over there and pawn us some wizard hat wearing pubbies. Just imagine a whole galaxy to mess with.
Suddenly people seem interested, more alert than they have done for a long, long while.
GSF Ops & Plans (Ops): Okay Boss I’ll start getting the plans together. What we going to call the Executive Corporation over there?
CEO: Err there are no Corporations.
Ops: H’mm okay, going to make it hard to rally the cannon fodder under one banner, and who we going to fight if we can’t point at an enemy? Never mind we’ll just organize over in game comms, or on TS and Mumble. What sector of space we going to concentrate on controlling and owning first?
CEO: Err Players can’t own space.
Ops: Right, so no corporations and no space. No worries, we base out of NPC space. I’ll get the manufacturing in place to fund the disruption operations.
CEO: There’s no player manufacturing or player run market.
Ops: Hmm, no worries we’ll find a way to make money and set the guys up in tooled up ships.
CEO: Don’t worry, the pubbies and Devs are designing a game with small gang PvP and CO-OP carebearing in mind. We’ll just steer it the way we want it.
BSF Intelligence and Espionage (Int): Okay boss, I'm on it. How many guys do I need to control the voice of the playerbase, how big is the CSM?
CEO: There is no player representation, they do however have a load of wizard hat wearing backers from the kickstarter who don’t have any final say in the direction of the game. We need to work on turning that into what we want, or get rid of it and see if we can fool the Devs into giving us our own.
Ops: Right, no territory, ownership, large enemies to fight or council to dominate the playerbase. STAGE ONE convince the guys to drop EvE:
http://themittani.com/news/e3-2014-elite-dangerous-impressions
Buffonswarm CEO has called together the top brass to discuss future policy and plans for the BSF.
CEO: Right peep’s. We know EvE is broke, we control over half of the territory and quite frankly there’s nothing left for the guys to do.
Assorted grumbles and nods of agreement from around the room.
CEO: So today I launch Operation Elite Dominate. Were going to go over there and pawn us some wizard hat wearing pubbies. Just imagine a whole galaxy to mess with.
Suddenly people seem interested, more alert than they have done for a long, long while.
GSF Ops & Plans (Ops): Okay Boss I’ll start getting the plans together. What we going to call the Executive Corporation over there?
CEO: Err there are no Corporations.
Ops: H’mm okay, going to make it hard to rally the cannon fodder under one banner, and who we going to fight if we can’t point at an enemy? Never mind we’ll just organize over in game comms, or on TS and Mumble. What sector of space we going to concentrate on controlling and owning first?
CEO: Err Players can’t own space.
Ops: Right, so no corporations and no space. No worries, we base out of NPC space. I’ll get the manufacturing in place to fund the disruption operations.
CEO: There’s no player manufacturing or player run market.
Ops: Hmm, no worries we’ll find a way to make money and set the guys up in tooled up ships.
CEO: Don’t worry, the pubbies and Devs are designing a game with small gang PvP and CO-OP carebearing in mind. We’ll just steer it the way we want it.
BSF Intelligence and Espionage (Int): Okay boss, I'm on it. How many guys do I need to control the voice of the playerbase, how big is the CSM?
CEO: There is no player representation, they do however have a load of wizard hat wearing backers from the kickstarter who don’t have any final say in the direction of the game. We need to work on turning that into what we want, or get rid of it and see if we can fool the Devs into giving us our own.
Ops: Right, no territory, ownership, large enemies to fight or council to dominate the playerbase. STAGE ONE convince the guys to drop EvE:
http://themittani.com/news/e3-2014-elite-dangerous-impressions
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
+1
As long as FD retain control nothing is insurmountable. Though they need to be careful of the "manufactured PR disaster".
BTW, here is the word from the Master himself. Admittedly, this was 8 years ago, but still relevant now & one reason why E: D is not an MMO to be dominated like EVE or others.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Good find - straight talking from the man himself.
Can't rep - still chuckling....
Same for me. That was excellent.
Does this mean I get a wizard hat at some point?
They'll be in the shop soon. For the records Mittens has won the '7 most impressive moves in online gaming' award. Wizard hats are mentioned there too.
I was active in EVE when that went down, was fun to watch the fallout.
I remember reading about that last year - his official defence line was that he was drunk wasn't it?
Not funny. Not even a little bit.
I genuinely hope he didn't take Mittani's advice.
Oh not funny what he did. Fun watching CCP scramble to do damage control. At the time Mittens was the Chairman of the CSM and thus actually one of the most important public faces of EVE, even in a 'respectable' way. I thought he deserved a lifetime ban for that.
Anyway... back on topic...
By all accounts the miner was ok, if a little bemused by the fallout. CCP eventually woke up to just how much potential damage could be caused and brought out the 30 day banhammmer. Probably should have been more but I think that CCP had handed over so much control to the player base, and by default GSF, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place.
This is particularly pertinent.
The reason armies spend so much time configuring and equipping to fight the last war is simple. It would be stupid not too. You have to defend against proven successful tactics, as given chance history will repeat. It would be beyond stupidity not to defend against them.
However HQ's spend a great deal of time also wargaming potential scenarios for future conflicts, (Pretty much like this thread). The problem is you cannot account for every eventuality. What you can do is be prepared to counter the most likely scenarios and agile enough to counter those that you didn't think of.
This is particularly pertinent.
The reason armies spend so much time configuring and equipping to fight the last war is simple. It would be stupid not too. You have to defend against proven successful tactics, as given chance history will repeat. It would be beyond stupidity not to defend against them.
However HQ's spend a great deal of time also wargaming potential scenarios for future conflicts, (Pretty much like this thread). The problem is you cannot account for every eventuality. What you can do is be prepared to counter the most likely scenarios and agile enough to counter those that you didn't think of.
Last edited:
- Status