if a large group of players cannot effect the game no one can, and what u then have is a themepark.
If *large enough* group of players...... It all depends what developers see as enough people to tip balance in one way or another.
if a large group of players cannot effect the game no one can, and what u then have is a themepark.
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.
Sol is huge. Achenar is huge. Gateway is huge. They are also policed heavily. They will not survive long there if they start firing on players, and because of the size of the systems, they are easy to avoid in any case, with or without private or solo groups.
Ooh, even better, today's blog post is actually very good reading, given we're talking about how power-blocs can influence the game in a way some would consider negative: http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/06/two-years-of-code-part-2.html
Highsec industrialists turned out to be breathtakingly bad at EVE. Their combined centuries of AFK mining did them no good when it came to actually playing the game. They gnashed their teeth, petitioned CCP to end combat in highsec, and continually warned that someone else would stop us. A small handful of pilots did try to disrupt the ganks, but they were slow to develop proper tactics. This gave the New Order time to grow, and to adapt.
The requirements of the Code were extremely limited: A fee of 10 million isk per year, and the miners had to behave like players instead of bots.
It was an extortion scam plain and simple, perfectly legal under EvE's rules of engagement.
What's written between the lines is that the author is certain there were tactics and strategies which could have been used to defeat the ganks. Instead, the victims turned into meta-gaming and petitioned CCP, instead of figuring out said tactics.
This is exactly what I'm afraid of when the Goons or a similarly patient and resourceful group enters E: D : FD taking unnecessary action, and ruining the game and diminishing the challenge.
It was an extortion scam plain and simple, perfectly legal under EvE's rules of engagement. I'd only say it could be considered griefing if he targeted the same player time and time again. Then again everyone has a different definition
Extortion scam targeting AFK miners and bots, AFAICT. Both are lower than lawyers, HR representatives and child molesters in my book.
It is an extortion scam - that is what makes it 'NOT griefing', under Eve's Ts and Cs.
It clearly started with the player being frustrated by people mining AFK - not helped by the fact that CCP seem to have designed mining to be done AFK, or not at all, as it involves no player interaction for long periods of time.
When players first petitioned CCP for being 'griefed', they looked into it, and it was agreed that so long as James was doing it for profit, not just to wind the other players up, then it was perfectly acceptable within Eve's rules. Hence the 10 million ISK annual fee (which is a trivial amount for Eve). Plus, a requirement for people to change their publically viewable bios, to state open support for James and what he was doing....
It has subsequently become much more about collecting tears, and sharing them on the blog page; and, honestly, some of the other players reactions (like "I will find you, and I will climb in through your window whilst you sleep, and I will murder your family" - seriously, people!) are eye-opening.
E: D is very different from Eve, for all the reasons other people have listed. But I don't think that will totally insulate it from the behaviours that arise in other MMOs that could be said to be 'not in the spirit of the game'. It may just mean they arise in different ways. Hopefully we won't be too negatively affected by them; certainly the various options for controlling/limiting who you end up playing with are probably the best tool to ensure that.
Sorry if this post is rambling and not making too much sense, haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet!
Sounds great, as long as "proper PVP" means "open-world PvP where station surroundings and highly populated systems are strongly policed, getting less and less policed the farther away you wander, where bounty system is balanced so that both PvP piracy and PvP bounty hunting are both viable occupations, and where deep space is FFA, anything goes"
I don't know what the frst two sentences mean.
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.
+1 and the arch-butt Mittens has expressed a clear interest. While I welcome Frontier taking their money, I dearly hope all their attery will fail, preferably in a hilarious and frustrating manner for them.