Terrible gameplay mechanics

[BoomHeadshot]

Another org rug pulled by a legate, another group of players not resubbing.

This game will die with the amount of game mechanics designed to make you burn out or quit.


Imagine not having a protection system against legates just taking everything.

Good riddance DU. GLAD WE GOT PETS THOUGH SUCH A GREAT UPDATE.

[Talocan]

How is any of that NQ's fault? We literally do have "a protection system against legates just taking everything," it's called RDMS and not giving perms to dishonest people.

[Shredder]

Sounds like you guys didn’t setup RDMS properly, and/or shouldn’t have made that person a legate.

[Daphne Jones]

1 hour ago, Talocan said:

How is any of that NQ's fault? We literally do have "a protection system against legates just taking everything," it's called RDMS and not giving perms to dishonest people.

To be fair, you can't stop the superlegate from taking everything that belongs to the org. Can you stop a regular legate? I doubt it. You do need to be careful about who you give rights too of course. Where NQ is a fault here is that they consider scamming to be valid game play. Bad choice IMO.

[AlbusD]

which org was it and who? im making a list of all these types of people. 

 

[Wyndle]

1 hour ago, AlbusD said:

which org was it and who? im making a list of all these types of people. 

 

Does this risk creating an espionage scoreboard?

[Novean-61657]

1 hour ago, Wyndle said:

Does this risk creating an espionage scoreboard?

It's more like making a list of the 'best', hiring them, then sicking them on the competition... Or have I been playing EVE too long? 😉

[blundertwink]

18 hours ago, Talocan said:

How is any of that NQ's fault? We literally do have "a protection system against legates just taking everything," it's called RDMS and not giving perms to dishonest people.

 

Explain how "not giving perms to dishonest people" is supposed to work, though...? How are you supposed to know who is or isn't honest in a game, especially one where there's no repercussions for stealing because NQ insists it is "emergent gameplay"...?

 

Theft isn't "emergent gameplay", because theft is literally just using RDMS as intended -- emergence is an interaction of features, not using one feature exactly the way it was coded.

 

It isn't "gameplay", either, because it has no consequence -- PvP is barely implemented and there is no reputation or legal system of course. There is no gameplay whatsoever around theft. 

 

It's the game's job to manage ownership and property in a way where everyone can contribute to orgs without the org crumbling because a legate gets bored and tears it all down.

 

And let's be honest, when NQ had their market destroyed...they responded with bans...so maybe it's a bit silly to suggest that the end-all answer is "just configure RDMS right" when even NQ has made mistakes. 

[Talocan]

If you don't trust them enough to not steal something, don't give them perms to it. Don't give them perms to "everything" if they don't need it. I dunno if I'd call robbing people emergent gameplay, but as an Eve player I say: welcome to the sandbox.

 

Rep system is make a reddit post about their thievery.

 

Legal system is shoot them.

[blundertwink]

 

1 hour ago, Talocan said:

I dunno if I'd call robbing people emergent gameplay, but as an Eve player I say: welcome to the sandbox.

I guess, but part of the point is that there's no one to say "welcome" to...

 

If theft is just part of the sandbox, fine...but just shrugging and saying it's just a part of the game is only convincing if the game is actually growing, versus shrinking dramatically even compared to low numbers at release.

 

1 hour ago, Talocan said:

Legal system is shoot them.

Unless they are in a safe zone or in an atmosphere...so not much of a system. 

 

Don't get me wrong....I hardly think player theft is the biggest issue with DU, but it clearly isn't a flawless system. If group play is going to be so vital as so many constantly claim, then playing in a group should have the mechanics required to make sure it's fun -- so that people can be leaders in a guild without tearing it all down because they are bored.

 

Just saying "trust people" isn't a system...the whole point of theft is that you do trust someone enough to give them perms. You shouldn't have to vet someone so deeply just to cooperate in a game...a game where ostensibly cooperation is vital. 

 

Blaming players when there's so few players to blame just doesn't seem like a good approach to me.

Edited December 22, 2022 by blundertwink

[Talocan]

So what's your alternative? I mean, if NQ does take a stance that prohibits "taking stuff in bad faith" who's paying for all the extra GM hours to figure out what is "stolen" or not? Honestly I suspect that the policy of theft being allowed is a pragmatic one, so that NQ doesn't have to step in and settle arguments over what belongs to who.

[blundertwink]

1 minute ago, Talocan said:

So what's your alternative? I mean, if NQ does take a stance that prohibits "taking stuff in bad faith" who's paying for all the extra GM hours to figure out what is "stolen" or not? Honestly I suspect that the policy of theft being allowed is a pragmatic one, so that NQ doesn't have to step in and settle arguments over what belongs to who.

 

First, why is it required to have an alternative...?

 

Pointing out that a concept is bad or doesn't work right doesn't obligate you to fix said issue. The point of feedback is to surface issues, not neccesarily fix them.

 

That said, this needs to be solved with mechanical changes, not GM enforcement. I'm not suggesting it needs to be a virtual crime that requires GMs to figure out. There are infinite mechanical solutions, many of which have been discussed over the years. 

 

Or, if NQ wants it to be a part of gameplay, it needs to be a real, balanced mechanic -- not just exploiting trust and getting away with everything with no consequence. 

 

I agree that you're likely right about how NQ's approach is more pragmatic than anything...but something like this can really, really aggravate people because it does feel like you've then wasted a huge amount of time trying to be cooperative. Time that you are paying for in the form of a sub. 

 

That's not great for the game no matter how you slice it...you'd think they would have more concern seeing as how they have such a vested interest, but I'm not sure they do. 

[Atmosph3rik]

I think something that NQ could do to help prevent these situations is some kind of a "So you want to start an ORG" tutorial or FAQ or something like that.  That you are pointed to, before you start an ORG.  

 

Something that explains ahead of time that it is actually NOT a good idea to take all your resources put them under the ownership of one ORG, and then give Legates full permissions to it.

 

You really have to make sub-orgs and divide resources and responsibilities in a way that minimizes the amount of damage that any one member can do.

 

Not everyone needs to learn that lesson the hard way though.

 

 

[Zeddrick]

11 hours ago, Wyndle said:

Does this risk creating an espionage scoreboard?

We need this!

[Zeddrick]

4 hours ago, blundertwink said:

 

Explain how "not giving perms to dishonest people" is supposed to work, though...? How are you supposed to know who is or isn't honest in a game, especially one where there's no repercussions for stealing because NQ insists it is "emergent gameplay"...?

 

It could just be a tickbox in the RDMS permissions surely?  'Prevent Theft'.

[Talocan]

20 minutes ago, blundertwink said:

That said, this needs to be solved with mechanical changes, not GM enforcement. I'm not suggesting it needs to be a virtual crime that requires GMs to figure out. There are infinite mechanical solutions, many of which have been discussed over the years. 

OK, so how does the mechanical system determine what is theft and what isn't? Like if I fund a ship and make it useable for my org, and then later decide to leave, am I allowed to take the ship that I paid for with me?

[GraXXoR]

Anyone saying there’s no way to enforce it “mechanically,” (programmatically?) is wrong. 
 

there could be audit system and permissions systems like the barter system that could be used to mitigate the chance of one person leaving with everything 

 

though it won’t save a ship, it could save an entire multiplex of containers. 
 

there could be an RDMS system which requires a vote to undertake actions
 

Eg.. want to remove something from the coffers? requires a vote or a predetermined wait time before automatically being accepted. 
 

problem is that the system would be somewhat cumbersome and no way in hell a team of NQ’s caliber could pull it off without another major Market Place 15 debacle. 

atill, as flawed as it is, it is possible to use org structure and RDMS to protect much of your wealth. 
 

back in alpha and second alpha etc we legates split our org into five functional sub orgs. Each of us and our respective Alts were the only full legates in our sub-org so the maximum any one of us could have stolen from the whole was approximately 1/5 of the total org value. 
 

it did present challenges if someone was away but even then only 1/5 of the org went offline until they returned. 
 

the central org Nova X, where each of us was a legate and our sub org members were also members was the staging ground for all our current builds and drop boxes for ore etc. 
 

we’d deposit the stuff for the build into the central org ‘s containers and cooperate to get it built. 
 

ore for processing was placed in the master refinery. 
 

once the build/refining was complete it was handed off to one of the sub orgs and locked down. 
 

this system served us well until player churn killed or org. 
 

TL/DR; management is a thing.

 

 

[blundertwink]

10 hours ago, Jinxed said:

Anyone saying there’s no way to enforce it “mechanically,” (programmatically?) is wrong. 

 

100% -- the fact that orgs need to give people "destroy the world" permissions just to get stuff done is itself a problem that can and should be solved within the game rules. 

 

The challenge is that any real solution isn't realistic because it would require too much work.

 

NQ didn't design this properly from the get-go and it's probably too late to fix it now. 

 

They had ample time to fix it when this happened during beta -- any idiot could see that this wasn't a realistic "mechanic" for release...especially in a sub-based MMO with no NPCs where there's so damn little to do. 

 

If orgs are going to be so vital to keep people engaged, their property should be entirely separate from personal property.

 

There should be specific rules for when org property is allowed to become personal property -- e.g. only from specific dispensers which have quotas. If you donate something to an org, you can't take it back except through those specific means. 

 

Any logistical operations that would require a legate to "take stuff" temporarily can be refactored in a variety of ways...for example, org property could be tagged so it can't be resold or transferred to third parties, or reverts back to org control somehow...or probably best, implement mechanics such that orgs don't need to grant elevated permissions to begin with!

 

There's infinite ideas on how to make this work...but the point is that orgs are a central concept in DU and the effort you put into them needs to be somewhat protected. 

 

If the only real currency is trust because theft can't be retaliated against in any meaningful way...that's not remotely scalable in an MMO, especially one with so little else to do.

 

You can't both say "you need an org to really enjoy DU" and "orgs are entirely trust based and anything you contribute can vanish because one person gets bored or unsubs". 

 

People can say "welcome to the harsh reality of DU" and claim it's just part of the game....but saying "it's part of the game" doesn't work when the game has so few players and is shrinking steadily.

 

Yet NQ can't even accept that permissions are a problem...never-mind actually implementing a solution.

 

Hence why after 3 months their numbers are so abysmal...honestly, with player counts like this, they don't even need a mechanical solution and bugging GMs to fix things wouldn't even be such a burden, lol. 

 

[CptLoRes]

The real world solution when someone is trusted to manage something, is that they are given budgets.

[RugesV]

I do wish there was another form of build access in the RDMS. One that would allow players enter build mode, and add /remove voxels and add elements, link elements, but not remove elements. 

 

Beyond that, Legate position is too powerful and should not be handed out freely. The only people who should receive legate positions are people that need to change the RDMS, and people that need to access the org wallet.  If people dont need to do those two things they should not be given a legate position.  Especially first year rando's you dont really know.