I cannot speak for them but from what I can understand and at least saw from @james was that it is not illegal or considered griefing. This is because there are still other sources out there for people to find, that they will adjust the ratio, and that it isn’t a game breaker in his or the team’s eyes.
I think if this becomes a norm or we see people taking it too far then maybe they will make adjustments. Right now the best adjustment is to just change the ratio and make it a little less rare.
Yeah, that’s my worry. If two people holding a monopoly of a rare resource on planet is ok then that’s a deal breaker for me personally. It’s just terrible game design, and that’s my worry. If rare static spawns can be held and thus monopolized there’s a problem with the game, in my opinion. Whether that is or is not going to be allowed is still something that seems an open question.
I’ve seen too many games ruined by similar problems.
No other resource in the game save for basic stone, dirt, or trunks are statically spawned and uncraftable. If they simply blacklist gleam from prefabs, or insure that it spawns in high enough frequency throughout the world (like cream gleam) then it can not be exploited without beaconing off a large portion of the entire world. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of plots for somebody to manage that sort of monopolization.
AmandaPan has reserved the gleam, not beaconed it. It can still be harvested by anyone in the game, and it will regenerate. This was done with the intention of preventing all of the remaining gleam spots from being claimed by one player, which would effectively remove the resource from the game.
Claiming a red gleam location with a beacon would be counterproductive, as it would stop regeneration meaning that nobody, not even yourself can harvest red gleam. It would be better to reserve it so it keeps producing blocks
Just to clarify, I’ve reserved 3 red gleam flags, not claimed them. So they don’t actually belong to me; anyone can harvest them. You just gotta find them first.
Would it be helpful if I made location markers available so players wouldn’t have to run across every inch of the planet to find them?
Not to be rude, but this statement is total nonsense. A monopoly does not require the product even be for sale. A monopoly can simply mean denying access to the commodity, which is precisely what you are saying frees you of the monopoly. Your statement equates to, ‘In order to not be subject to a monopoly just become a victim of it.’ Boggle.
It’s not a commodity if nobody wants it and it’s not required for survival. You’re not a victim if you lose nothing. Intent to acquire on the part of the person denying access and the person requiring access is what makes this happen. (Point of order: a monopoly “exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.” The word supplier is important in that definition; if you’re not selling, you’re not a “supplier,” and hence not a monopoly. There’s likely another word for that situation, but it doesn’t occur to me at the moment.
The world diamond market is a monopoly. It doesn’t affect me because I don’t want diamonds. DeBeers and their ilk spend a lot of money attempting to create need in the marketplace for this “commodity” through advertising and social pressure, but it’s an artificial need. Attempting to cast me as a “victim” of their actions is incorrect–because it’s logically, semantically, and physically impossible to deny me access to something I don’t want in the first place.
Definitions and any hand-waving aside, what concerns me is that the game is heading in a direction that causes these sorts of debates. From my perspective, it takes Boundless out of the realm of games and into the realm of actual work. That wasn’t what I thought I was funding.
I like playing semantics, as it’s what I did for seven years in college. We’re a little off track here, but hey… it’s fun to learn.
Monopoly - the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
The controller does not need to supply the commodity or service. They only need to control it. In fact, history has examples of people taking an essentially worthless or low value item, controlling it, and thus making it significantly more valuable.
There is no ‘supplier’ in the definition. There is just the control of a supply.
That being said, it doesn’t matter if red gleam is a functional part of the game. Much of this game is about aesthetics and appearance, since a substantial part of the game is about constructing buildings. If something is rare and has an appearance (and no function otherwise) then people will want it as a material. It’s really that simple. The red gleam in this case is a perfect example. It has no use other than appearance, yet here is a thread filled with some folks who are upset about having no real access (perceived or otherwise) to the material.
I’m also concerned, which is why I chimed in in this thread. These discussions and the issues they reveal are the purpose of beta, so it’s good to see it happen… and it’ll be good to see a player made charter than will help in preventing some of the foreseeable problems. Sure, it won’t solve all of them, but having these discussions now can prevent some serious issues later.
And those were only the people that are active on the forums. I know for sure that if I would still play Boundless a lot more people would collect their 50 free refined red gleam from me.
I only took the refined gleam because it was free and because I wanted to drain your coffers! [of course I appreciate you giving it out!] Yes I have some red gleam but haven’t used any of it and in fact have limited gleam use because I completely disagree with huge gleam builds for prestige and other reasons. While in some cases a gleam build is nice most are just eye sores.
Anyway, I really think this issue is just causing more drama than we need especially if we are starting to argue the exact context and semantic of the word monopoly. In fact I think we are giving whoever locked down the red gleam exactly what they want… and that is sad.
Let’s just close the books on this please because they don’t have all the red gleam out there and won’t. Also I am sure some people will help reserve more things in the future when the ratio of items changes and if something is too rare.
The developers have basically given their view that at this point in time they are okay with people trying to corner the market on items. If something as tiny as red gleam can ruin someone’s game because they can’t have it, then that person might need to go to another game because we are going to see many cases of this just due to the dynamics of an open sandbox and how resources are.
I know most people want to use this as an example of griefing but the developers have said it is not. So we need to respect their decision. All we can do is continue to bring issues we see to @james and the team and have them define what is allowed and not…
And the reason I say all of this is because if Nature was selling this stuff you all would be just fine with it unless they were selling it for 5,000,000,000 coin or whatever. So is it really worth arguing something that is done and not being changed.
I for one am glad we had this discussion. It has lead to invaluable information and input, as well as revealed some of the limitations and consequences of certain resource distributions. We have learned that gleam, in particular must have certain considerations regarding its availability taken into account due to its static nature. (No pun on the user intended!) Lastly, I think the future of the game will be considerably better for this topic.
I’m setting an automatic close timer on this topic of 15 hours to allow for any last comments on the matter, but I think we are more or less finished here.
Firstly, anyone complaining about these discussion has a pretty simple solution - call the police and report the person holding a gun to your head that is making you read the forums. I’ve played EVE Online since beta. God, I think it’s been like 15 years now. And for ages people would complain about frequent topics of discussions. It’s self-evident… don’t read them.
Secondly, these conversations are the entire goal of open forums for beta testers. These are the kind of things that need to be hashed out. I’d be amazed if the Devs found the converstions counterproductive. It’s like science - all information, even information that appears to be a failure, is still information… and all information is a win. Knowledge is power… and knowledge can’t be had without info. In this case, community input. As long as the conversation remains civil and polite and to the point… it’s all good.
It’s pretty obvious that monopolistic behavior, while not considered griefing, can ruin the game for some. The intent of the behavior is irrelevant. If the game allows a behavior that is going to drive more people away then it is going to draw and retain then it is bad for the game. Period. Again, it’s self-evident.
I’m not young. I’ve played online games since they were text and had no pictures. (MUDs). I’ve never seen a game survive the test of time that allowed the behavior of the few to irritate the greater population. My concern is about fun factor, which is all about the greater good… thus my input in this discussion. I’ve been on the fence for the last few weeks as to whether to upgrade to Pioneer (or more likely Chieftain). This issue and its resolution has a direct effect on that decision… which is all the more reason I wanted to pitch in.
Aim: We need to make sure that no individual player (or group of players) can monopolise any resource (or block in the case of gleam) in Boundless. This will ultimately be resolved by making sure that there are sufficient locations within a world and between worlds where the resources can be found. It’s our responsibility to make sure this is happens.
Player Charter: We need to define and have players agree to a standard that is expected and required of all players. The standard should also define what happens if you don’t adhere to the standard. What action will get you temporarily or permanently banned? These will likely be a standard set of user terms or EULA. But within this I think it would be good for everyone in our community, developers and players, to define what is and isn’t acceptable play. What is griefing and what isn’t? Ideally this literature would be as lean and simple to consume as possible. I would throw this out to the community for ideas about what this should contain.
Awesome. Absolutely love this. Seriously. Thanks, James.
As long as this is not some pulpy tome, I’d be happy to take this project under my wing and be the person who tries to coordinate compiling, editing, and writing the document.
@Havok40k If you’d like to team up I’d love to make it a team effort. I’m an instructor for a living, and am often outdoors… so at least two or three folks to work on a Google Doc to track this would be great.
