Avoiding Group Control...

[Andrew Sayers]

I seriously don't mind 'well if we did A' and Juniper replies 'Well B would counter that...' that's great and sorta what I'm looking for.

I'm completely with you on gaming out possibilities, but I get a bit worried when it starts tipping over into proposals to break the game now so someone else can't do it later. For example, if concerns about effects on the economy lead people to call for it to be nerfed to the point where nobody could change anything.

In particular, exchanging stories about how the last war was fought and talking about fear of it happening again can nudge lurkers towards the wrong conclusion, which is why it's good to hear people framing it as a mere data point in an ongoing discussion.

 

[ianw]

Watch the video, that's not a drunk person speaking. That a ... (Fill in whatever you want).

I know, it was a rhetorical question.

It's quite obvious he went way beyond the bounds of what is reasonable - and then a bit further. TBH I'm surprised he didn't suffer any RL "feedback" for a stunt like that.

 

[el_tel]

I remember reading about that last year - his official defence line was that he was drunk wasn't it?

His excuse was about as pathetic as Luis 'The Human Piranha' Suarez saying 'he attacked my teeth with his shoulder'

 

[JeffRyan]

I'm completely with you on gaming out possibilities, but I get a bit worried when it starts tipping over into proposals to break the game now so someone else can't do it later. For example, if concerns about effects on the economy lead people to call for it to be nerfed to the point where nobody could change anything.

That's fair enough actually. Much as I don't agree with burying our heads in the sand and saying there's no problem, going too much the other way also concerns me (remember my fight against the transponder). We have to find a middle way and moderation in game perhaps occupying a middle-ground. There should be a spirit of the game that's moderated by FD. So that even if a group like GS is playing by the technical rules of the game, breaking the spirit of it can still lead to repurcussions.

 

[PacalB]

That's not the problem, it isn't one person with a group like GS, it's literally thousands. And that's what the thread is about, how could thousands of players focused solely on causing havoc do so?

I think if we were a random MMO you'd be right about the paranoia, but this isn't a random MMO, it's Elite Dangerous. And it's what a lot of people in EVE have been dreaming about too for 11 years. So the cross-over, at least initially, will be HUGE.

I think what we also should be asking Jeff, is how does ED move forward without the meta-game being used and abused by groups like GS? It's the meta-game that creates the environment for these guys thrive in. Take that away and the focus around and it puts holes in their boat, give it to them (like the CCP did with Eve) and they sail away with the ship and all it's booty. Namely, ED and it's universe.

Those calling the "paranoia" card, seem to be doing so out of their own naivety and ignorance to past histories in games similar to this. This game can be broken a number of ways, and one of the easiest is just to destroy the storyline. Meta-game the hell out of the place, get everyone focusing on this whilst pushing the games story into a far corner. Of course, also whilst ostracising and belittling anyone who engages in it.

Fact is, like FD with its long term development plans, there are also groups drafting up plans to steer this game in their chosen direction. All the above has been done before, it can and will be done again if given half a chance and a window of opportunity to thrive in.

It's not MMO (and everyone knows that), but the beauty and potential of the multi-player game make it attractive as hell. To think, the mechanics alone are going to save the game is to have a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in your face a year or so down the line.

So, what to do?

 

[Pyros]

So, what to do?

Relax, play the game and don't worry too much until needed (if so).

 

[PacalB]

Relax, play the game and don't worry too much until needed (if so).

Yes, and Rome burned ... that was you fiddling then?

 

[Pyros]

Yes, and Rome burned ...

And still is around, even after over a couple thousand years

Really, I'm still to see any evidence or sound strategy that allows for a group domination of the game. Impact, yes, but that should happen by design, otherwise players would have no impact.

So far the most relevant thing I've seen the fear of "grouping" sending players off the All group. But that is fear from fear itself...

With the anti-griefing mechanics in place and a bit of oversight things should be ok. I may be wrong, ofc, but so far I see no need of additional or specific mechanics, besides the anti-griefing mechanics and NPC balancing (high NPC power, including anarchy systems). Actually, I haven't seen any specific proposal put forward to address "group control" (if there is I missed it).

 

[JeffRyan]

Yes, and Rome burned ... that was you fiddling then?

Heh, I think that's the problem there is that because Mittens has already noticed ED they'll be here for launch. (A disadvantage they found in EVE that they don't want to repeat). And on the forums by launch. In terms of the meta-game we have two big advantages, the DDF and the Private Backers forum which will both hold a sort of rallying point of the original backers and forum members (not all, but enough) that they'll have a place where their voices won't be drowned out. Two fortresses if you will of defense where those who held the original vision of the game can take stock and examine the metagame as it plays out.

I've clashed with PacalB in the past because I don't (and still don't) think we should be accusing new members of the forum of playing the metagame without proof. I think that proof comes as more and more of GS's desires become requested (breaking down some of the walls and protections against griefers, player owned assets etc) but even then we have to react to the whole and not the individual posts. Some of that is up to FD and I think Michael Brookes goes a long way to helping with that. With his gruff (I always imagine him as gruff) way of making it clear what FDs goals are and as DBs spokesman here in the forums he and others make it clear that THIS is the vision and it's being stuck to. The lack of corporations limits the metagame, though as larger organisations do form around TS Servers and groups, expect to see some of that.

Belittling particular viewpoints and trying to weaken arguments like the one I'm making here are also part of the metagame and we have to stay strong. On the other hand we have to remember that not everyone who disagrees with me or PacalB or ANYONE isn't necessarily playing the metagame (using out-of-game assets (people, TS, forums, whatever) to control in-game assets and out-of-game design and feedback). I'll personally always treat every disagreement (like Junipers) as a genuine one.

We do have to fight them without becoming them.

And still is around, even after over a couple thousand years

Really, I'm still to see any evidence or sound strategy that allows for a group domination of the game. Impact, yes, but that should happen by design, otherwise players would have no impact.

But the Empire isn't... A sound strategy has been outlined, a thousand or so players in groups of 10 or so (that's a hundred groups) going from system to system just generally griefing the hell out of everything. Is by far the simplest. It won't lead to domination, but it would lead to hell. And a thousand is a conservative number. They don't need to control everything, just enough to be a real pain the ass and then their PR Team can do the rest. As well as manipulating the metagame.

 

[Juniper]

The problem I have with Juniper's argument is he seems to think that we have all the bases covered and that there's no way GS can impact ED.

That might be correct, it might not. And I seriously don't mind 'well if we did A' and Juniper replies 'Well B would counter that...' that's great and sorta what I'm looking for. It's the denial that there's anyway that GS could cause havoc. Because that's the goal, 'take it or break it'.

I think you misunderstand me somewhat.

Yes, I am effectively saying that - and that's because we have been through all this many times, which is why we are where we are in terms of protecting the game from harmful players.

Most of the talk has been (up till now) about individual nutters, whereas this broadens the scope somewhat as you're talking thousands, however... I still think the mechanisms that are being put in place are good for the many as well as the one. And I stick by the point that thousands is a small number in Elite terms. Multiply it by the same number and you might have a problem.

You may take this as being 'complacent', but really I just see it as FD (with help from the DDF and the wider forums) having made all the decisions that need to be made. More could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Remember, we want players to be able to effect change in the galaxy, to break markets, to tip empires over the edge, etc. That's what was sold to us all in the Kickstarter by David, and it's an important part of the emergent gameplay everyone wants from multiplayer.

I just see the notion of "controlling" the game, in any way whatsoever, by a group of players, as not being applicable to E: D... for all the reasons I've stated in this thread.

 

[JeffRyan]

I think you misunderstand me somewhat.

I think I understand you perfectly, I'm just not sure I agree with you. Thousands with one specific goal isn't the same as one who's blocked by the police or can be ignored. And sadly GS aren't idiots, they'll try to find holes, we need to check they're all covered.

 

[Pyros]

But the Empire isn't... A sound strategy has been outlined, a thousand or so players in groups of 10 or so (that's a hundred groups) going from system to system just generally griefing the hell out of everything. Is by far the simplest. It won't lead to domination, but it would lead to hell. And a thousand is a conservative number. They don't need to control everything, just enough to be a real pain the ass and then their PR Team can do the rest. As well as manipulating the metagame.

How would that scenario play out?

Imagine they start jumping into systems and griefing players. Naturally high transit low patrol systems. Lets overlook the need to identify such systems and the fact that griefing may be not very profitable and more difficult to do than say. And having to face NPC pirates.

So they start collecting bounties on them. How long until Player and NPC bounty hunters start going after them. And other players trade within "powers" safer systems.

So sooner or later they move inside the Federation/Imperial areas. NPC bounty hunters become the navy. Interdictors, vipers and all that HW going after them...

 

[Juniper]

I think I understand you perfectly, I'm just not sure I agree with you. Thousands with one specific goal isn't the same as one who's blocked by the police or can be ignored. And sadly GS aren't idiots, they'll try to find holes, we need to check they're all covered.

That's fair enough. Eternal vigilance being the price of freedom and all that.

Everything put forward thus far has been countered though I feel. What else is there?

For me, the beauty of the design is that there is no one single panacea that solves every issue. It wouldn't be possible anyway. It's a combination of things, which can be applied in varying measures that (for me) makes the net pretty strong and without visible holes.

 

[CaptainSodom]

That's fair enough. Eternal vigilance being the price of freedom and all that.

Everything put forward thus far has been countered though I feel. What else is there?

For me, the beauty of the design is that there is no one single panacea that solves every issue. It wouldn't be possible anyway. It's a combination of things, which can be applied in varying measures that (for me) makes the net pretty strong and without visible holes.

Creative griefers will find a way. When there are hundreds, or more likely, thousands of them, they will find several ways.

Again, I'm not too worried about losing battles lost in other games, such as shutting an entire route by gatecamping or territorial control. I'm more worried about abusing the novel game mechanics in E: D - supercruising, interdiction, docking, etc - in novel ways to unduly imbalance the game or to do real griefing. And eventually ruining the game for us PvP players through knee-jerk reactions from FD, arising from increasing calls for action by players who feel they have been "griefed."

And I'm not using the term "griefer" in the sense ganking squads repeatedly attacking every opportune target. That is not griefing.

 

[Malactus]

I'm not worried over this. Infact, I'd want for groups to form up and attempt stuff like this, because it will cause fluctuations in the pricing, which creates more opportunities. and such actions make the world feel alive. I'd also want NPCs to blockade stations as well, while all, NPCs or Commanders to react to these sorts of events, and not sit on the landing pad twiddling their thumbs around waiting for the blockade to be over .

32 players is also nowhere near enough players to cover every single quadrant of a station warp in, and any closer to the port would just result in them being shot if theyd fire.

The fact is, There are no gates to camp: and stations have their defenses, which probably will be amped if station fighters are implemented, and with proper use of silent running, anyone skilled enough could become a blockade running.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

a thousand or so players in groups of 10 or so (that's a hundred groups) going from system to system just generally griefing the hell out of everything.

If we assume Frontier can identify and hand appropriate consequences to one group of 10 players per day (have them chased by loads of NPCs, do some matchmaking jiggery-pokery, banish them to hell, etc.), a thousand players would take them 100 days - call it four months, assuming they take weekends off. That's a serious problem, but I could live with a four month expedition beyond inhabited space while they worked out the teething problems.

As you say, the real question is whether Frontier can apply appropriate consequences without being rules-lawyered to pieces.

 

[HellToupee]

if a large group of players cannot effect the game no one can, and what u then have is a themepark.

 

[Cosmos]

if a large group of players cannot effect the game no one can, and what u then have is a themepark.

Agreed.

 

[JeffRyan]

if a large group of players cannot effect the game no one can, and what u then have is a themepark.

Not really if you apply different rules to large groups that you do to individual players or small groups. If you can identify that a large group is trying to break the game, you deal with that on a case by case basis.

 

[Juniper]

Not really if you apply different rules to large groups that you do to individual players or small groups. If you can identify that a large group is trying to break the game, you deal with that on a case by case basis.

Do you think that's necessary? If so, why?

EDIT: different rules I mean.