Inter-Player Credits Distribution and Acquisition

#1

Yesterday @WalrusFist and me were discussing credit distribution and acquisition in chat, I wanted to put some ideas we had here, most were already had some when, some where, but I couldn’t find them, so I guess they are “lost” in the old forum.

What is semi confirmed by the devs is this:

and that there will probably be some kind of simple bounty thing, similar to Counter Strike, where you get money for kills or "points’ (planting bomb, defusing). The later part (points) is speculation but I guess there needs to be some compensation for players that do supporting roles.

There will also be money gained trough resource transport. I suppose that that money gets distributed evenly throughout the team or put in a global fund. That isn’t what I like to discuss though. This is just about how players can use cash to help each other.

Lottery Idea

The “transfer credits to pool for essential ships” idea is a good basis and would work fine for gorups that know each other. But there needs to be an added function for strangers to pool the resources. Here the idea comes in an idea that would also work well with the SFC lore. Crowdsource big ships.
This idea originating from the old forums goes as follows:

There where big ships could be selected would be two buttons:

  • Buy (or Build) now [big sum of money]
  • Buy Ticket [some fixed amount plus a slider to select how many tickets to buy]

The cost of each capital would be split up into an amount of lottery tickets with which the capital would be funded. Once all tickets are sold the capital is build and the lottery is run. The one who wins the lottery gets to drive the ship. To have a bigger chance in getting to fly the big ships you can buy more tickets. If you only wanted to help the war effort, you can decline the ship and let someone else have it.
This way casuals can help the war effort and drive big ships without ever needing to trust people they don’t know. Additionally I would favour putting in some kind of automatic tax/autobuy function that buys lottery tickets for the player automatically but can be opted out of. So players might suddenly get a “You won the lottery. Fly a destroyer now? Yes/No” or something similar every now and then.

Groups could still pool money on their “carrier driver” guy and let him buy the carrier without any lottery ticket shenanigans.

If a global fund for the money coming from resource transport is used, it could be used to pay some of the price of the capital, removing unsold tickets from the lottery.

On the fly missions / Influence War with your Cash Idea

We had ideas that fleshed out the bounty system a lot, players being able to add bounties to specific targets and such. Though, I believed that that didn’t really help a lot or at least not just that alone.
So the idea goes to combine the idea of “bounty” with leadership.

On the map view there would be certain tools, available to everyone. Things like: Attack Target, Defend Position, Capture Base, Scout Here, Support Target, Move/Follow this Path or anything else that would allow for leadership and personality.

The gist of the idea is: To use those tools one has to pay, and if someone fulfils the task, they get paid. (Preferably with that same money)
People can see these “missions” and can do them or even support them by putting their own money on it. This would allow for some kind of monetary voting system. If an attack has been successful for instance. The attackers can now vote on witch station to go to by adding money to the respectable “Capture Base” mission objective.

This would allow people who really want to lead to use the system and would be a dissentive for people misusing it, as they would need to use their own cash to do that.

Here again, some of the “corporation money” coming from resource transports could be used as a catalyst to encourage people to do the missions.

Drawback Bringing Faction money into the systems

At first I had the idea to make the game magically “topping off” the Lottery and Leadership system. Using money gained from resource transports as catalyst for both systems is better but has still the same drawback.
It forces group and competitive players to use that system.
Though, If other ways exist to gain credits from the the faction pool and if unfinished lotteries and missions are refunded, groups and competitive players could use that other way and neglect the lottery and command system and thus making all money available trough the other “way”.

2 Likes
The Economy of Battlescape
Weekly Update #72
Discussion Videos
#2

Its one thing to be allocated an increased amount of team money if you are getting kills, its another to create that money out of thin air. If you do the latter you create a “feeder” system where some players are actually hurting their team by existing, this leads to abuse from teammates and a pretty negative culture. gameplay wise its really not sound, because instead of encouraging worrying about objectives you get hunter style players who just try to rack up easy kills for funding, instead of perhaps defending or attacking an objective or targeting more skilled players.

Thats my spiel against bounty systems anyway. Its better if all team funds come from resource points.

2 Likes
#3

This isn’t about the bounty system. All money circulating in the two ideas have already been earned by the players. Exception are the two italic written lines at the end of both ideas.

The Bounty idea isn’t mine. It’s from the I-Novae team.

#4

I dont really like the lottery idea, as it brings an element of gambling into a game that is about war. I like the idea of forcefully opting into this system (with an optional opt out) even less. I am fine with a tax, as long as it is to fund an automatic mission board.

Not to mention that those who are new to the game probably wont be so heroic as to deny the chance of flying capital ships. They will probably say “Hell yeah, capital” and then crash it as they are chasing a small fighter into the atmosphere of a planet.

About the on the fly missions/leadership:
Another way would be to give a simple ai the leadership of each faction. It could offer smaller rewards for recurring tasks (like patrolling, or weapons testing), which could double as training of the core gameplay for newbies (maybe with a cooldown on a per mission per person base?), and offer occasional missions like ‘attack station xyz’ / ‘build a new resource gatherer’ when certain criteria are met (x players online / funding per tick z slower than other faction) together with some type of alert mission, whenever something is attacked, like a carrier or station.

2 Likes
#5

Is it the idea of “gambling” and its negative implications that put you off the idea or is it the mechanic in itself? A lot of games have random elements and I know a lot of people don’t like them but in this case it doesn’t even influence the base gameplay, just the distribution of assets. The more of your resources you contribute, the higher your chance to fly the ship you contributed to. It’s pretty fair in my opinion.

And you can even save up all your cash and buy a ship yourself if you don’t want to have anything to do with that.

People need to learn to fly those ships. You can’t expect from everyone to go into singleplayer and do it without anyone to shoot at. There will be players who can’t handle the new gameplay of these ships. I think stuff like that is needed to allow for newbies to become veterans. And they did do their part to fly those capitals.
I think this problem is far less the case then with having a first come first serve system while not locking out new players.

Your second idea about using AI giving out missions sounds rather gimmicky. Sure it gives new players some direction, but I don’t think it helps the war effort with normal casual play a lot. AIs are hard to program and won’t ever (at least in the development of I:B) be comparable to the collective decision of multiple players, let alone a sole commander. You may be able to program a neural network to act like the human group, but why not just keep the system that you used to record the data and let the player keep doing it?
Do you trust game systems more then players? Do you think putting the tools into AI hands would be easier to balance or implement?

I’m not trying to attack your opinion, I’m just asking for a clarification.

1 Like
#6

I don’t like the lottery idea. Someone who buys 1% of the tickets could win it while someone who buys 50% doesn’t.
If I know some noob could get the ship and will likely squander it, then I’m not going to contribute more than small change to it, if anything. It would be better use of my credits to upgrade my equipment etc.

#7

I don’t see any particular issue with the lottery idea beyond “will it get used?” I think it would be simple enough to implement, and play testing in beta could determine how well it works.

#8

A proposal instead of ‘lottery’ (eww) for letting teams have access to capital ships sooner:

Each player in the game gets a pool of unusable credits, tied to the amount of personal credits they make, that are allotted to them to donate to another player of their choice from their team.

Done.

You don’t need lotteries or tickets or voting or big overcomplicated menu systems. You just need one number and a list of names.
Leave the rest to communication and psychology.

1 Like
#9

I dont like the gambling as I think it is counter group play. People won’t be able to plan out the use of the capital. It will seemingly randomly ‘drop’ on one of the players. If people actively pool ressources, they create plans, they decide the roles, who gets to fly the capital, fit out and then go on a raid together.

Also kind of a moot point (as it kind of invalidates one of my previous points too, but hey, I didn’t think about it back then): There will be a sandbox mode, so no random lottery is needed to give newbies the chance to get used to capital ships.

The main reason for proposing an ai commander was that the idea of a human commander was rejected vehemently in another thread. And for the record, yes, I think that it is possible with relatively little effort, to create an ai that allows for better decisions, as the ai commander may get access to informations human commanders may not get ( like the ‘faction a has n more res per tick than our faction’ flag that will trigger a mission called ‘place more resource gatherer’).
I also use the term ai commander rather loosely, it’s more a simple set of rules that will trigger certain reactions.

#10

You are probably right that the higher the percentage one puts in, the less interested he is in the whole idea of the chance of giving that money away. And that’s ok in my opinion. If you don’t want to take that risk just keep on saving that money, if one made 50% for a Cruiser, why shouldn’t he be able to make 100%?

The whole thing was build behind the idea for casual players to jump in and also have a chance to experience the capital gameplay with long, multi hour games, without lowering the value of capitals by giving them away for free.

This is done by pooling all the resource of the whole casual player force. Regulars who play together will have it switched off and just hand it to whom they find worthy, flies the best or they trust to just buy it once the group saved up enough collectively. Note that the group has to do a lot of coordination (like decide who’s best, keep an eye on not spending everything and transfering the money) while casuals don’t have to do anything else then just play the game. They don’t need to determine who’s the best, they don’t need to persuade themselves or be persuaded to giving away for the team effort and they don’t need to stay for witch ever long amount of time to earn enough money personally to save up on a capital ship. It allows freedom for the devs and the server admin to make capitals more valuable while still allowing them to be part of the game for players that only have a limited amount of time … this is a big goal for I:B last time I checked the KS trailer.

It doesn’t matter if you put in the same amount of money now or over a longer period of time. Your overall chance to flying a capital will be the same, with the second method having the advantage that it doesn’t need input and bringing a capital to the field much faster then a single person ever could and not rely on coordinated groups. I know people, including me, want that players should have an incentive to group up, but this shouldn’t be one.

I imagine that most lotteries won’t have a big majority single entity in them.

That’s why there’s a default “autobuy” option that is switched on for new players.

It would look similar to Star Wars Battlefront 2s Hero Aquisition mechanic, just with the upside to being more transparent, make the economy matter and be adjustable.

You could hide the whole mechanic, make it just “Play Cruiser Now? Yes/Now” don’t allow for switching off the autobuy or let the mechanic pull from the faction pool or just make the ships appear after a time period. All things done in other games and mostly also just based on pure luck or first come first serve.
I would like to see capitals being more then that, having a transparent display that your and everyones money will be in your or that ship will make it be more then just “oh look another ship appeared I can spawn/jump into, neat’o” in my oppinion.


Let me follow that up with an example.

  1. We have a 100 player faction:
  2. A space cruiser costs 1000 space bucks.
  3. The “autobuy” function has put in 10% of each players income into crowdfunding a space cruiser.
  4. After 10 minutes of play, each player has earned an average amount of 100 space bucks. From witch they have/had 90 space bucks in their wallet or used them for upgrades/cusomication.
  5. All tickets for the space cruiser have been sold. The space cruiser is shipped an the winner of the “lottery” has the option to fly it.
  • A single player would need to play 100 minutes to buy a space cruiser for themselves. (with autobuy disabled)

  • A group of 10 players would need the same amount of time the “lottery” took, 10 minutes without using any of their money to buy a space cruiser.

  • Casual players that have leftover credits and want to play a capital ship faster can spend that to higher their chances or find a group to pool into.


This isn’t a complicated system with a lot of additional menu options in my opinion.

This is just bringing in additional funds and would work together with this “crowdfunding” system. It adresses how players can get more credits, it doesn’t adress what the “crowdfunding” system tries to solve, making teams consisting of random players not knowing each other not having to guess and still enjoy all aspects of the game while still being able to be on par with group players economically.
If a random group of players fails to send all their available funds efficiently (and that might happen a lot) they fail to produce a ship as fast as the organized oposing force.
I can see people finding that good.
I think access to base gameplay should be easy for anyone. Be it capital ships or simple coordination.
Stuff like in depth tactis, flight paths and advanced fund management should still need groups and advanced communications, from what I believe myself and what I heard from the devs, the line should be where I drawn it.


The “lottery” idea doesn’t hinder them in the slightest bit to do that. What it does is not force them to do it in order not hinder the team. Think about it this way: If you have 100 players in your team. You know 10 of them and tell them your friend is the best Carrier pilot, lets get him a Carrier asap. They’ll do it. You can persuade another 20 people to put their excess money on your friend. Another 20 people allready have a group and pool on their own.
50 people don’t answer at all … the “crowdsourcing” system allows those last people to be cooperative too by pulling maybe 10% or something comparable from their income and redistributing it as ships.

The idea isn’t aimed at noobies. It’s aimed at that big chunk of casuals I-Novae tries to market too.

1 Like
#11

Mmm, I whole heartedly disagree with having an invisible gathering. If you are going to have it set to default on, then the tutorial should explicitly show players where to turn it off. It should also explain that a very small portion of your funds will be directed towards this lottery, and the percentage you supply is the percent chance of winning. Something as simple as a slider bar would work great, from 0 to 100%.

Something that I’ve been wondering about is resource allocation to offline players. If being offline results in me not getting resources, I’d simply never log off, and that’s bad for several reasons. Instead, I’d like to see players that have logged in within “x” hours/days continue to accrue credits. After “x” hours/days, their credits would be divided amongst the active players at some rate of decay.

#12

It does hinder them. You don’t know when the ship will be financed and drop on one of the guys, making group planning impossible.
Also on a rather harsher side: Casuals, who don’t organize in a group, shouldn’t be able to get a capital in the first place. A capital ship is an asset that is worth a lot. It makes a difference and a huge blow to the overall war funds. Giving it to someone random will hurt the team, and make all the other people who participated call bullshit on the game. Take a look at Destiny pre 2.0 (Dunno how it is post 2.0) - People who actively made a difference in a strike / raid, often got the shaft as some idiot, who only kept dying throughout the whole thing, got the best loot thanks to rng, whereas those who were good (because they had to run the thing as they didn’t get the drop) got bullshit drops for months. People were rightfully appauled by this game mechanic until they went all stockholm-syndrome over it.

The lottery also throws off the whole personal player progression thing. There is no ‘quest’ you embark on, when playing the lottery, you don’t gather a trusty group of friends, you just win the lottery. And everyone hates you for doing so, because they didn’t.

1 Like
#13

I disagree. It’s a ship that wouldn’t exist without such a system. There are some things that such a ship could do to hinder the war effort, but most aren’t any worse than nothing at all.
As I said, if you are talking about a group: Those can circumvent the system completely. They opt out or never accept the lottery and go on transferring money manually.

Are you talking about separate faction credits or just the overall credits all the players have combined? We don’t know how or even if faction credits will exist. If it’s the later, it would be the other way around. Those credits laying on the accounts of casual players would be unused or rarely used, hindering the war effort by not funding ships with it. Even a lone wolf ship can be useful.

I don’t know about experiences in Destniny. I only played games where vehicles were handed out first come first serve or randomly, both had their drawbacks and there was allways the chance for someone to screw up. Loot drops themselves are only remotely comparable to a vehicle with special abilities that can aid the war effort. I said it often in the chat while having this discussion. Think FPS not RPG, there are a lot more fitting examples to be found in FPS games then in RPG games.
Also note that a person earning less credits, however that may be, will have less chance to fly a capital.

If that’s your opinion that’s okay. I assumed that the devs wanted to allow access to all of the base gameplay as easily and for the broadest audience possible. This idea tries to cut out the need for groups without hindering them in any way while still retaining all the design freedoms when it comes to how valuable to make capital ships.
If you want to make capital gameplay valuable and special, only obtainable trough a combined effort, then this system would work against that, yes.
But consider the drawbacks:

  • Teams with higher ratios of casuals would not only be in the disantvantage when it comes to tactics, skill and information but also force wise, as they wouldn’t employ all their resources.
  • Capital warfare would happen much less in general, especially with a lot of casual players, like I-Novae would like.
  • People who don’t want any social interaction in online games, yes those exist (“Yahtzee” Croshaw), would be annoyed by the need to group up or transfer funds to have a chance or experience all the content of the game.
1 Like
#14

I think the only point of contention is the opinion of mandatory vs voluntary participation. If you voluntarily partake in a lottery, and get mad because you lost, you’re a fool. I believe there is a quote of fools and their money, yes?

1 Like
#15

I meant the amount of credits all players of a faction possess combined. The sum of faction A credits are (imho) faction A’s war funds.

#16

Since we’re on this subject…let me throw out my suggestions

We know we’re going to have 3 different corporations fighting it out, so why not give all of this conflict a corporate flavor.

Assumption: Servers will remember players for the duration of a match.

Company hiring

There would be two categories of employees:

  • Corporate employee
  • Contract employee

All employees would be “security” type employees for the first iteration of I:B wherein there is only combat.

Employee category characteristics:

Corporate

  • Employment duration: entire match (i.e. you cannot change factions between play sessions)
  • Steep discount on all goods purchased through Corporate HQ
  • Access to proprietary corporate tech and facilities at no cost (able to upgrade and modify ship freely w/Corp HQ)
  • Standard pay amount for tasks completed

Contractor

  • Employment duration: session (i.e. whenever you log in or out of the game you can choose a different faction)
  • Pays full price for all purchased goods anywhere
  • Pays for access to upgrade facilities
  • Corporate HQ sponsor agrees to pay a matching commission for any completed tasks (doubles payout)
  • Corporate HQ sponsor agrees to pay a death and reconstitution gratuity (i.e. get payed a certain amount for dying…not to exceed cost of a small ship)

Funds acquisition, transfer, and debt

Whenever funds are acquired through completion of tasks (safe arrival of and sale of cargo ship resources, corporate wide objectives/bounties), employees will receive a weighted cut of the payout

Weighting payment

Everyone starts at a value of 100, meaning even distribution

  • Escorting a cargo vessel will increase the weight of your payment by up to a max of 30 points as a percentage of the amount of time you stayed within a certain distance of the vessel
  • Actively engaging in combat with an opposing faction within a certain distance of the vessel will gain an additional 20 points max for all engagements
  • Achieving corporate objectives will add variable weights (to be determined based on what activities actually pays out)
  • Debts and loans are deducted after weighted contribution is received (payroll deduction) and transferred to the employee(s) that are owed.

Funds transfers

  • Transfers between contractors and anyone else (including other contractors) is considered a “Loan”. Interest is included at a standard rate of 5%.
  • Transfers between corporate employees is considered inter-departmental budget negotiation and does not have to be payed back.

Corporate asset loss
Corporate employees are expected to maintain corporate assets in good functioning order.

  • Loss of capital ships imposes a debt equal to the discounted cost of the capital ship to be paid out to other corporate employees (aka loss of departmental budget)
  • Contractors do not acquire debt on losses since they pay full market/corporate price, however, it will contribute to their employee rating and cause corporate pricing on goods and services to increase for them.

Mobile Merchant Corporation (MMC)
(aka the door-to-door salesmen of the galaxy)

The MMC specializes in making a profit on anything, anywhere, at any time, and war-profiteering is one of the most lucrative (and perfectly legal and morally acceptable within StarFold society).

  • Any faction may purchase ships/weapons/modifications/resources from the MMC
  • MMC has supply/demand economics and only replenishes its limited stock on each item at a certain rate.

If the pricing is better than Corporate HQ pricing, then it would almost always be better to purchase from the MMC.

Corporate expansion, pullout, and mercenary pilots

Most conflicts start when 2 or more corporations try to expand into the same territory at the same time. A corporation will typically pullout when the investment cost of acquiring a system exceeds the estimated 20-year return on investment.

When a pullout occurs, current sector employees will be dropped from the payrolls. In the past, this has caused problems when pirates groups form and start disrupting otherwise stable business ventures.

StarFold law dictates that any employee without a current valid contract is automatically transferred to the Association for the Regulation of Non-Aligned Contractible Employees (ARNACE). (gamewise, when a faction is terminated, everyone on that side becomes a mercenary faction)

ARNACE

ARNACE employees must adhere to strict behaviors and will be penalized for deviations. Continued infractions may even result in the loss of reconstitution rights.

  • ARANCE employees may only lawfully attack anything that has a bounty placed on it by a legally incorporated entity
  • Damaging anything that doesn’t have a bounty on it will accrue a debt equal to the damage caused.
  • If no bounties are currently in existence, ARNACE employees may “hijack” cargo vessels for transfer into their own communal chapter assets in order to continue the proper functioning of said chapter.

Other thoughts

On a side note, I don’t think there should be any artificial bars to people acquiring capital ships, but I did put penalties in for losing one to hopefully prevent end game matches from turning into nothing but captials. Also, if they lose it, they are automatically paying back everyone on the corporate team in the form of a debt.

The price should be somewhat high for capitals, but doable for anyone playing a reasonable amount of time. A potential aid (and also abuse) to this would be to allow players to accrue credits between matches.

Anyway, let me know what you guys think

1 Like
#17

I fail to see how the lottery idea is bad, inside the corporations won’t most of the regular players be in their own “Factions” (sorry I’m new to posting here and I’m not quite sure what you’re calling your internal/social clans), so the regular players could simply donate their credits to an agreed designated member to buy the more expensive ship or whatnot. They would have no need to rely on the lottery system. But the lottery system would be excellent for all the new players to the game who don’t have a clan within the corporation. How are these new players individually expected to raise the money for expensive ships, most of them will loose interest in the game if they don’t have a chance to use them.
This is where the lottery becomes useful, the new players will be more inclined to use it as they don’t have a clan to work with. So many new players would simply use the lottery as this way they can build funds without having to have close social ties and trust to other players.

The lottery idea is perfect as long as their is a way to donate funds to other players manually, which from what i have read appears it will be implemented and the lottery was simply an additional feature to help the players who don’t have a group of friends to play with

1 Like
#18

I agree with this sentiment.

As far as I’m concerned, @Lomsor is solving the wrong problem because of a certain assumption. He wants players with a short play session to have a shot at running an all-powerful capital ship. So he sets up a system to do that - but with the assumption that a capital is a kind of super ship.

Change that assumption and short timers can get involved in capital operations. No lottery required and gameplay is expanded.

Turn a capital into a group asset. We can’t have crews on them for some reason, so have crews off them. Here I am sitting in my fighter or bomber, but acting as a gun director. I line up on a target location, press fire and one or more of the capital’s weapons fires at my target. The gameplay of such a system can get quite involved, but the details aren’t important for this discussion.

Now you can have a casual filling any number of roles related to operation of a capital because none of the roles is so dominating of gameplay that the elite want them only for themselves. In fact, they need people to help operate the capital. A casual can handle the mundane role of jocking the capital to where it needs to be so that the gun directors (multiple of those) can direct the guns as needed. All the while, there are small ships supplying the capital with resources for its operation, repairs, and so forth. For all I know, a capital has effective warp engines, but crummy thrusters, so they need tugs to help position them.

I’d also add that I don’t want to see monetary rewards for killing stuff. Assign rewards to everyone in the area where a victory condition is established, and let the players who repair the ships see as much of a reward as the people who destroy the enemy capital. The more solo rewards there are, the more solo-focused gamers there will be. That’s not good for a multiplayer game.

2 Likes
#19

So the big question is: “Who should get to fly capital ships?”

That’s a tough question. We know that capital ships will be extremely important. As mobile spawn/rearm/refuel points and as orbital bombardment platforms (Carriers and Cruisers) with Destroyers being effective against groups of fighters/bombers. They put a lot of power in a single players hands (even if they need to be heavily supported), so it’s understandable that many people wouldn’t like them to be given out to just a random guy.

There are many ways a pilot can be decided and I think it should be up to the player groups within the game that are funding the assets to decide how to assign the assets. Give players the tools (to vote/set up a lottery/set up a tax and have a player auto picked based on stats) so they can use them how they wish.

If you are not in a player group, I see no problem with being able to opt-in to a global lottery and/or tax system.Those credits are up to those players to allocate.

So my answer to “Who should get to fly capital ships?” is to let the players decide.

When you give everyone options it’s much more likely that a leader will emerge saying “let’s use this system”

1 Like
#20

I don’t like your idea.

I played WoW for a long time, where there are / were similar discussions about the distribution of loot. Now we had multiple categories of distribution systems there:

  • The worst guilds let everyone roll for the loot (full randomness), sometimes with the limitation of one item per dude.
  • The mediocre guilds had a special system that shared the distribution by amount of dedication. It was sometimes fair, but it often failed to give the right items to the right guys, which would have supported the whole group better
  • The best guilds had a council consisting of members who all knew how everyone played, how everything works together, distributing the loot. This sometimes wasn’t that fair, but often resulted in more succesful raids.

In I:B, I see a whole fraction as a Raidgroup. Sure, teams don’t have to contribute in such a lottery, but it will not help the whole group if a fraction of players are spending their money to let someone with low expertise fly a really valuable ship, and therefor wasting those resources.

In my opinion, there should be a vote system that keeps the share of “lottery tickets” in mind. So if someone bought 5% of the ship, he can contribute to 5% of the vote. To get the ship one needs the majority of 50%. Everyone has two votes. If that didn’t yield a fine result, let it be random, or give the ship to the one with the highest votes.

Other idea is that everyone pays into the lotery and the best players are able to vote for the dude that should fly such a capital.

Of course, my ideas wouldn’t be that “cool” for new / bad players, but I think that we would have a hell of inconsistency and a lot of randomness when the controlls of one of the key elements of this game would be handed over to either a good or a bad player just depending on pure luck. Not to be pessimistic here, but I think this might even result in a very angry, salty community, as they “just lost because of the noobish Capital Controller”, which would make everyone much more sad.

If a new / bad player wants to fly a Capital, he can go to Sandbox. In the real game, he should let the pros getting on the controlls. There is nothing stopping him from getting a pro himself and showing the other players that he is good enough to fly a capital.

1 Like