The last thing anyone would want, I believe, is a repeat of the T20 scandal (EvE Online), this time with the Goons playing the role of BoB.
Ha! I doubt it, but it would be very very ironic.
The last thing anyone would want, I believe, is a repeat of the T20 scandal (EvE Online), this time with the Goons playing the role of BoB.
Whilst we can't dictate playstyles, Frontier are doing their best to hard-code into the game a definite push in that direction, making in-lore mechanics such as the police and bounties, that aren't fiction-breaking in the way Concord are (why don't concord ships just dominate Null given they're so damned powerful). Which will go a long way to making border systems being the place to make a career of being a villain. For the individual player. Matchmaking mechanics and the discussion of a hell group which should be decided using data mining rather than reporting will also go a long way.
The question remains. How can you stop a massive group from dominating? What hard coding could be put in place that would limit the power of a mass organisation to influence events or dominate certain areas of space, even if through indirect means like missions and pushing for example, a faction in a local dispute that would further the goals of that faction (ie. Say MG1 (massive group 1) decide to ally with the Empire and push Empire policy in all missions and disputed areas. Would be one way to do this. And not having an MG2 that would counter that, they'd soon start to influence the game).
One way that could disrupt this sort of push would be diminishing returns on player contribution. So player 1 contributes 1 point to the final objective, player 2 0.9999 and so on.
Seeing as the ED thread over on the SA forums seems to have been started and maintained by an FD employee, presumably he doesn't mind as much as I expected.
You would have much more credibility if you hadn't just turned up this summer, and if you gave the impression that you actually researched the game and the vision of the Frontier devs & DB.
Instead you come accross as a self righteous Goon envoy from EVE, who somehow knows how the future obviously has to unfold... because obvious, and sandbox.
I'm not buying it.
More players = good thing.
But consumer protection laws in western countries prohibit vendors from acting as self-appointed sheriffs. Your ISP will not cut off your internet connection because you're using it to look at pictures of naked ladies/men (is that innocent enough for you, profanity filter?). Doesn't matter what the CEO thinks about it. Just so, FD will not ban players into their segregated instances because they don't like what they do within the rules of the sandbox they created.
Of course. But that isn't my concern. Which is more players with an agenda that because of sheer scale and organisation can push that agenda with success.
Actually every MMO has a variant of the casino rules, where the management reserves the right to revoke your access for any reason. That is there to protect against loopholes and to be able to remove any disruptive and antisocial individual who is harming their game. You are living in a fantasy of entitlement here.
Why should he? That sort of thing can fit in well if they design the system to cope with it. More players = good thing.
The only way to do it fairly is via having guilds...Goons will mostly localize into a few as they are by nature group orientated then you slap diminishing returns after 10 points by a guild or slap diminishing returns on wings and such (so that say 3 players working together will be twice as fast doing stuff as a single one but their contribution will count in the background simulation as one and it scales upward from there maintaing that curve, hell they could even use a parallel to Amdal's law here to do it ).
The only way to do it fairly is via having guilds...
Actually I'd say the opposite. With no official guilds. With no official stats or killboards or territory. But loose groups of guild-type-organisations organised externally via 3rd party measures that have no real in-game backing will take a massive amount of focus (and thus enjoyment) of that side of meta-game OUT of Elite Dangerous. It'll be more difficult to organise the RealPolitik side of the game if that particular mechanic isn't supported.
If Guilds are implemented. The RealPolitik side of that with all that entails will follow. The particular element of Goon-play will quickly lose attraction if there's no-one to play against.
That would be giving in to the guilds before the game's even started....
i think one burning question that i tried to get an answer to is whether or david braben himself has an issue with massive groups like gs trying to dominate the game. Most of us (including myself) assume no. Based on various other ideas and the general 'anti-griefing' mentality and from the get-go trying to ensure that griefing is minimalised.
But as this thread points out various times (myself also included) griefing and massive group domination either of an area or the game itself is an entirely different question. And requires different solutions.
Or even if it is a problem for david. It's a question i tried to get an answer to in the recent q&a, but i was doing exam practise at the time and probably didn't put it in the best possible way. And it didn't get answered.
I, for one, would back off this whole subject if david answered that he didn't mind and even welcomed the attempt.
to be honest that's my view too - ie the single player is the more exciting experience. Tight co-op can also work well (eg halo), whereas mmos can be as much about managing antisocial or intolerant behaviour of some players, as about gameplay.
I firmly believe FD should take an absolute 'our way or the highway' approach with any/everything to do with this game. Because those who have supported the game up until now at least are absolutely on board with their vision for the game.
In David we trustED player demographic is mainly made up of 40-something's with a lot more disposable cash than your average GS.
David braben has already made it clear that EVE issues will not be permitted in ED and he will have huge wide support from his cash rich backers who played the original elites and believe in preserving that vision.
Sincerely, it seems a fair game. What's the problem?... influence events or dominate certain areas of space, even if through indirect means like missions ... (ie. Say MG1 (massive group 1) decide to ally with the Empire and push Empire policy in all missions and disputed areas
It's unlikely that there will be giant corporations like Eve-Online. However, the galaxy is gigantic with enough space for small-groups of players (guilds, clans) to potentially claim a system and build their own stations. This could be an expansion later on.
Sincerely, it seems a fair game. What's the problem?