Ha! I doubt it, but it would be very very ironic.
Avoiding Group Control...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
- Status
Ha! I doubt it, but it would be very very ironic.
Personally, and that's what I think FD is actually doing, I'd code in an escalating system. This is hinted at in notes for police response. Basically, police start out by sending a few vipers, but if the players kill those, the next wave will be a bit more stringent.
For high security systems I'd go as far as deploying capital ships and overwhelming firepower - the key is to do it gradually. That way individual and skillful acts of piracy and violence are allowed (for example it is faster to just demand cargo than blow up the ship, and pirates may more often opt for that if it means they can run away from police sooner; also assassins will have to work fast, and have a comparatively expensive ship to make a quick kill in high security systems), but sustained campaigns of wanton destruction will be met with an appropriately overwhelming force.
Voila. No large groups of players can lock down a system - they can sweep through it and run away, but not sit in it for hours, camping everyone who comes by.
And of course, lawless systems will be open for that kind of gameplay, where player groups can "own" a system like a gang owns its turf. Which is also good.
I don't think we have to worry too much about this sort of thing. ED looks well designed not to be conductive to the sort of problems Eve faces.
Why should he? That sort of thing can fit in well if they design the system to cope with it. More players = good thing.
Oh no! Should I have submitted my CV to you in triplicate beforehand?
What will you do when players start to "turn up" en masse and you know... write stuff? Should we warn them they need an official seal of approval before their stuff will be "bought"?
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.
Well, it all depends on the game. Contrary to some beliefs, I did actually spend quite some time examining the basic design of ED, which is why I'm saying it is not conductive (if the final design is true to the concept) to large player groups dominating the game.
You have for example Planetside 2. Game places no limit on the number of players in one spot, within the overall limits of the server. The result - zergfests. If you can have 500 players assaulting one position, you will get 501 players trying to assault one position.
But, also, the game did not involve obvious chokepoints. Result = zergfests AND small group play.
Then SOE introduces the idea of Lattice and Alerts - basically think of it as each base being a gateway to the next and game determining short term, very focused goals, like take all the Biolabs on a continent - and the small group play diminishes. Zergs dominate even more.
Eve is an extreme example of what the combination of the number of players on a server - it has only one - and chokepoint design can do. The result is absolutely innefective solo/small group play and zergs dominate to such a degree that they evolve into blobs. It's not even funny anymore.
The result - 0.0 game is stagnant and divided between a few superpower blocks and their hunting grounds... yeah, they actually keep "unclaimed" territory for sport.
ED doesn't have any of that. There is the limit of 32 players, and there is of course, total freeform travel and general lack of safe chokepoints (sitting at a station when police ships are trying to kill you is not exactly best for camping).
I'm sure some loopholes will be found - there are always a few, but it is up to FD to design their game so that it doesn't get mired in unsolvable problems like the above games did. If they can do it, no sense in worrying, if not... nothing players can do about it.
Ho boy, name one example, just ONE, of a player who got banned from the game for killing other toons in PvP?
Because that seems to be your definition of griefing and "antisocial" behavior.
I don't wholly disagree with you. Certainly, before the talk of goons, most players intending to play online would prefer to avoid splitting the playerbase precisely for that reason. I suspect that most people after KS, and indeed up until recently, expected ED to be small groups or single players milling around and doing their thing. In terms of the injected events, that gives a certain playstyle.
Whereas we're now beginning to realise that there will be large guilds operating in the game. Even if those guilds can't dominate territory in the way they do in Eve, they do have the ability to make a sole player's contribution to an event less meaningful, as directed application of power by 1,000 coordinated people will change how these events are played. If the guilds didn't tell you who they were going to support it might not matter. But they will tell you.
Anyway, I don't see a reasonable way to actually block this sort of thing and I can see the argument that it would be unfair for FD to try. Others may be on different parts of the change curve. That doesn't mean that I want to see guild play facilitated (clan tags, player credit transfer, player ID always on).
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.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That would be giving in to the guilds before the game's even started....
We already have ad-hoc guilds which are recognized. Would you prefer unregulated but legal organizations or regulated and legal? Cause it really won't matter to them either way. As for the political side...causing failcascades gives a boon to morale yes but as for the general propaganda side they can just easily run with a forceful education spiel as they would with a known enemy ( they kicked other alliances to pieces for ignorance in EVE, what's to stop them from aiming on a community level? ).
I assume FD would only step in once they become destructive for the game and Goons never cross that line so aside from Adept and Olrik who have that hope, and I do hope they are not forlorn with it completely, I do not think anyone should assume anything positive when dealing with Goons or Goon-like entities.
I did say I expect power plays post release ergo you assume wrong and as for giving in proper...you already have one full fledged player organization and a couple in prototype stage...to borrow a popular phrase: That ship has sailed, you gotta make sure it does not hit a reef off the coast of Somalia now.
Interesting thread OP/others ;-) (having read pretty much all of it the past few nights).
Seems the prophecy early doors about 'rules lawyering' & attempts to subtly (and even not so subtly on a few occasions) influence opinions around what elements of certain other games should/should not be a part of ED where FD have clearly/firmly stated what game they were making from the get-go & have only reinforced this at pretty much every turn, has already happened in this very thread (and elsewhere on this board, judging by accounts in this thread).
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.
Any 'rules lawyering' or attempts to use perceived 'popular support' by various individuals or groups with vested interests should be met with:
'Well, no. We're not changing that/allowing you to do that/continue to do that. It's 'in the rules' you say ? Tough ****. What you're proposing is against the spirit of those rules/the game itself & what a far greater proportion of the player base wants to see out of the game, and what we want to see out of the game/according to our long held vision for the game. Consider said rules/proposal(s) you've bought up changed/null & void/declined as of now. We make the rules, we reserve the right to interpret or change them as we see fit, we also reserve the right to say no without giving you justification why to any proposals you may have re: changes to the game, and at the end of the day no correspondence will be entered into re: these issues'.
At the end of the day, everyone who has contributed to the game financially to this point & who will buy a copy of the finished game will be (or at least should be) acutely aware of FD's philosophy with regard to the game, and frankly has no business whatsoever attempting to either strong arm or subversively force FD/the majority of the player base into accepting changes to or perversions of what the game is intended to be.
Edit - Forgetful me....I believe Sumkawps covered it beautifully in this post yesterday.
Seems the prophecy early doors about 'rules lawyering' & attempts to subtly (and even not so subtly on a few occasions) influence opinions around what elements of certain other games should/should not be a part of ED where FD have clearly/firmly stated what game they were making from the get-go & have only reinforced this at pretty much every turn, has already happened in this very thread (and elsewhere on this board, judging by accounts in this thread).
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.
Any 'rules lawyering' or attempts to use perceived 'popular support' by various individuals or groups with vested interests should be met with:
'Well, no. We're not changing that/allowing you to do that/continue to do that. It's 'in the rules' you say ? Tough ****. What you're proposing is against the spirit of those rules/the game itself & what a far greater proportion of the player base wants to see out of the game, and what we want to see out of the game/according to our long held vision for the game. Consider said rules/proposal(s) you've bought up changed/null & void/declined as of now. We make the rules, we reserve the right to interpret or change them as we see fit, we also reserve the right to say no without giving you justification why to any proposals you may have re: changes to the game, and at the end of the day no correspondence will be entered into re: these issues'.
At the end of the day, everyone who has contributed to the game financially to this point & who will buy a copy of the finished game will be (or at least should be) acutely aware of FD's philosophy with regard to the game, and frankly has no business whatsoever attempting to either strong arm or subversively force FD/the majority of the player base into accepting changes to or perversions of what the game is intended to be.
Edit - Forgetful me....I believe Sumkawps covered it beautifully in this post yesterday.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about everyone who has supported up till now being absolutely on board with their vision (you only have to look at the DDF/DDA for that), but everyone does agree that it's FD's vision & decision in all cases - and the vast majority of us are still here.
I wouldn't worry. The devs are not stupid - they have played the other games - they knew this forum assault was coming, and are not about to be swayed for any reason whatsoever from the path of creating this great game.
For the guildies...
1) What exactly do you want to see that is not currently there or in the pipeline?
2) How will that benefit members & non-members.
3) How will it benefit Elite?
In David we trust
---
Sincerely, it seems a fair game. What's the problem?
Last edited:
I wonder what the power blocs would think of these insolent upstarts in their insurgency.
Missions generated to take out guildie-owned stations with nukes disguised as algae perhaps?
Missions generated to take out guildie-owned stations with nukes disguised as algae perhaps?
It is mentioned that there will be an expansion that will allow the building of small inflatable asteroid stations, but not the big stations. The grouping system would make it unlikely that a system could be owned by players.
Basically it comes down to breaking monopolies. A monopoly never leads to a fun game. Ask my sister and my wife about how much they both wanted to kill me after our last game. Err... I mean, even in the real world we try to avoid monopolies, sometimes with little success. grrr microsoft. But I think another way of looking at this thread would be 'How can we stop monopolies that have little to no chance of being broken from without from forming?'
- Status