DEVS: Why no social features like chat channels, guilds / corps and parties?

[Dejay]

Maybe now with the article on tentonhammer about the lack of social features and the removal of the offline mode because of the "multiplayer vision" for the game, it is finally time to get some info's from the devs about this? Why are the social multiplayer aspects of the game being ignored design wise? The DDF and devs are not saying anything about these:

• Local chat (station / system) OPTIONAL!
• Job specific global chat (trading, bounty hunting, mercenary, exploration)
• Guild / corp / wing features and chat
• Parties e.g. spontaneous small groups of players
• Cooperative multiplayer missions
• Shared bounties in wings
• Group interdictions
• Trading between players, credits
• Locating friends and party members on radar / map

There has been some discussion previously about guilds but these threads have all been merged into one unintelligible mega thread, no dev ever offered insight and there was a lot of backlash, so I've given up on the topic after a while.

I'm simply going to quote an excellent reply to the article from reddit:

There are some very simple facts here:

• This game is being marketed as massively multiplayer
• MMO games need social features because they are all inherently social experiences
• Right now the game really doesn't have any social features
• The lore isn't relevant here, just like it isn't relevant in something like World of Warcraft. These features are needed in order for the game to have mass market appeal
• A lack of mass market appeal will turn players away
• This is bad

I simply do not understand the people who are so vehemently against these social features, and especially when they start throwing out game lore reasons why they would make no sense. For those people, you always have the option of playing solo or just ignoring the comms screen.
If we don't have social features:

• We can't form groups unless we organize out of game
• We can't ask for assistance or make any kind of "LFG" type requests
• We can't set up contracts or any kind of business dealings
• We can't build organizations or coalitions that have a common goal - no mining corps, no corps dedicated to assisting the Eranin independence groups, no "Imperial inquisition" etc
• If we can't have groups or even talk to each other, how are we supposed to have any player driven conflict?
• Without conflict, how can we have any emergent gameplay?

I know for some bizarre reason it's a deadly sin to talk about EVE Online here, but I'm going to talk about EVE for a moment. The player driven conflict and emergent gameplay and stories are the one thing that makes EVE truly amazing and unique in the MMO market. If the corp/alliance system and chat features didn't exist, none of that would be possible. Like, at all. EVE would have its heart ripped out. But if you're playing EVE, you don't have to pay attention to any of it. You can close the local chat window and never, ever join a player corporation. You can stay in high-security space and mostly play solo PVE if you want. But you never see people calling for those social features to be removed, because to do so would be to rip EVE's heart out as I mentioned.
You guys who are against adding social features to Elite: Dangerous are, in my opinion, completely crazy. And the reason I think that is because there is absolutely no harm to you whatsoever if they are implemented because you can literally click one button and never see another player interaction again. Play solo if you don't want to be social, or just ignore the traffic. But please do not advocate that these features are not added, because there are many of us who believe they are absolutely needed for this game to be successful and have any appeal beyond the hardcore niche.
With rich social features we could have stories that are rich and exciting like EVE, maybe ones that could even make the gaming press like stories in EVE have many times. If Frontier wants this game to truly be considered multiplayer, for God's sake we need to be able to communicate and organize!

Here is a great quote on why we need chats to create a multiplayer experience:

Online games NEED global chats.
Indeed, they're filled with garbage most of the time, but that's not the reason they're needed. That garbage breathes life into the game, by making you aware that people are there, and contrary to what people think, they aren't ENTIRELY useless. There are still meaningful interactions there, people are exchanging information, asking questions, asking for help, making arrangements, deciding to meet each other, and they at the very least pop in to say "hi!". It's a key element to the creation of a cohesive community, and actually a prime aspect of fighting against griefing: if people care for each other, they won't be so tempted to annoy each other, but they will be more temped to help others.

Commonly encountered objections:

I hate reading chatter of others all the time some complaining, some insulting others, some telling random stuff.

Since it's optional you can simply click "disable chat" and be done with it. I think this sentiment against chat is very common but it's not a valid argument against the feature.

Why not use external tools for chat?

Because a) it's clumsy to use b) it breaks immersion with alt-tab and c) it splits the community in those using this or that type of external tool. Even worse there could be several alternatives.

Faster than light communication isn't realistic

This is such a fundamental "meta" feature that realism doesn't matter. Besides faster than light communication already exists in the game, e.g. information about crimes or call for reinforcement is FTL communication.

The game isn't finished yet! Why complain now?

Because it will negatively impact how new players receive the game and hurt long term customer base if these features aren't added soon.

But voice chat already exists

Some people can't voice chat because they have no headset or other people in their house would get annoyed (e.g. night). Others don't like voice chat because it's harder to roleplay, less immersion, it's "louder" or because they are shy.

Why do you need guilds / wings you can already use the grouping feature

The "private group / shard" feature is actually badly named and implies that it's meant for grouping players together. Instead if splits players apart from the rest of the player base.

There are "alliances / wings" planned

The current status on the DDF for alliances / wings is severely lacking. It's not clear if it's a temporary grouping and everyone can invite anyone, and the players can be kicked by voting. It's not a substitute for guilds with a structure. In any case we would like to know more.

Elite was always about standing alone against the forces of the universe and making your own way, not hiding in a group. Guilds would undermine the "lone wolf" playstyle.

There is room for different play styles, and there is no reason why guilds would lead to the detriment of lone wolf players. At least as long as group gameplay doesn't have unbalanced advantages for reaching game goals but that doesn't automatically follow.
About the intended style, taken from the preorder details page:
"Whether you want to trade for profit between systems, take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances, free-for-all group battles and team raids to bring down planetary economies, even tip the balance of power in the galaxy (for your own advantage of course), or simply explore the wonders of the galaxy (and who knows what you’ll find out there...) is up to you."


There are two similar threads but this shouldn't be specifically about the ten ton hammer article.
Ten Ton Hammer- ED needs social tools (Smugallo)
The Need for Social Tools - TenTonHammer article (LeiHarper)
DEVS: Why no social features like chat channels, guilds / corps and parties? (Dejay)

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

There won't be global chat for sure, and there won't be guilds/clans at first release.

System wide comms are mentioned as coming, and wings are hopefully in gamma.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Maybe now with the article on tentonhammer about the lack of social features and the removal of the offline mode because of the "multiplayer vision" for the game, it is finally time to get some info's from the devs about this? Why are the social multiplayer aspects of the game being ignored design wise? The DDF and devs are not saying anything about these:

You already created a thread about at least some of this:

Maybe this has already been addressed in the alpha forum / DDF or I don't understand/know the current plans, but from what I know about the current design needs to address concerns about PVP. Sorry that this is so long

TLDR: A solution to protect PVE carebears from ganking needs to be implemented before launch, and genuine PVP content should be implemented asap.


As discussed in this post or here on reddit there is some considerable apprehension from both PVP players and PVE players that ED doesn't have a good strategy to deal with the effects of PVP or the lack of PVP.
The alpha players have much fun shooting each other, but the final game won't be like that. Ship destruction will have higher consequences, accumulation of bounties will hinder PVP, chances to actually find evenly matched players will be lower and respawn times to "get back into the fight" will be much longer.


Problem 1:
The concern is that the "free for all" PVP all group will create a game where PVE players will have problem with PVP players, but also a game that also isn't satisfying for the majority of PVP players either. My wild guess would be that at least 50% of the player base will not enjoy getting killed by groups of 2-3 roaming player killers and ridiculed afterwards (see PVE/PVP server rations in other MMO's).
Accumulating bounties will be a complication, but also a badge of honor. In the worst case they can simply ask friends or use secondary accounts to collect their highscores / bounties themselves and actually make money with that. Law enforcement can be handled or fled from after the damage is done. In any case, it seems impossible to balance both the requirements of PVP players and the requirements of the PVE players to the satisfaction of either one. From what I understand of the current design plan (and I might be wrong of course) it's a loose/loose situation for both sides.


The situation will also be exacerbated by the lack of easily accessible guild systems for casual players to offer protection, a pool of regular wingman groups or simply a place to vent frustration. Organized hardcore player killer clans will have it easier because of lack of opposition. Also they can share resources. But it would only take a group of 2-3 roaming PKs to cause much annoyance among a large part of the player pool. I don't want to argue in favor of guild support here, I just want to point out that compared to other multiplayer games this makes it more important to address PVP related grievances.

Other multiplayer games with MMO aspects have faction based PVP, so the "free for all" PVP might be an additional escalation of the emotional effects of player killing. Faction PVP polarizes and furthers honor bonds between players of the same faction. Free for all PVP... makes you trust no one. Players might say now "a harsh universe sounds good" but I expect the reality is at least 50% won't like it one bit. PVE servers in WoW exist for a reason, and many ED backers played ED as a single player game. Some players might think that there will be no chokepoints or hyper-jumping away will be easy enough, or that the ignore function will solve all problems. I don't even want to think about Ironman, but the only possible way I see how to survive in the all group there is to form massive guilds like in EVE. Maybe that's a good thing.

Elite Dangerous is also an unbalanced game by design compared to first person shooters who rely (even more) on skill than on equipment and upgrades to your ship. You will mostly encounter players who are at a big advantage or at a big disadvantage to your equipment level.

The effect will most likely be that PVE players will leave the all group in droves and play solo or with a few friends. Once there, they might not come back. Beta / Gamma won't uncover these effects because of different audiences and styles of play in a beta.
PVP players will also get bored because the game doesn't offer challenges and only sporadic PVP gameplay and will spread negative views on the game.

Solutions:
The two simple solutions would be to either have two separate PVE / PVP groups to play in, or have one "all group" that has a kind of PVP flag that you can enable or disable to make you invulnerable to other players. There are realism concerns about weapons simply glancing off of players but gameplay is much more important in this case. A separate group would of course also split the community and make the universe less populated, but at least it would be better than players moving to solo groups.

Maybe an ingame rationale can be found like an optional "PVP insurance" that serves as an explanation for the PVP flag. Any player who gets killed by another player gets all their ship and cargo reimbursed and the killer gets a huge fine to pay for the victims insurance costs and gets hunted down quickly by impossible to beat (IMBA) NPC bounty hunters repeatedly. It would have to be something so utterly draconian that it makes players almost pity the fool who has ganked him. The Elite Federation of Pilots could be an organization with the pull to do that. Of course this would be an option, and there should be encouragements to actually not choose this "PVP insurance".

* Increase costs for switching between PVP / PVE
* Provide unique rewards for PVP ("Murderer" Elite rating?) to encourage switching it on
* Pirates would be excluded from disabling PVP (Just kidding hehehe)


---------------------------------------------------------------
2. Problem:
PVP players will love the alpha because it provides lots of fast paced fun and challenging encounters with other players that are evenly matched.

The biggest concern is that because of the large size of the universe, PVP player will encounter far to few players for PVP centric gameplay, and of those only few will be evenly matched and therefor challenging and fun. Real PVP players want challenging fights, not a slaughter of the innocent. I think many PVP hungry players don't realize yet that piracy and bounty hunting in Elite was always against NPCs.
Some might say that ED is a sandbox and open PVP is fine, but my experience of unguided random open world PVP in WoW is largely boring. There will be epic battles that are entirely player driven but it will be too rare.

Solutions:
The procedural mission system could provide this kind of gameplay in form of PVP missions that lead you to border systems between the Alliances and the Empire where constant low level warfare or proxy wars broil. It would even have the potential to offer superior PVP gameplay compared to the always same battlegrounds or arenas in typical online games. Complex campaigns and varied encounters would be possible.
PVP missions could match players evenly, for example learning the "time to live" of each player against other players of different skill and equipment levels. A horde of newby players with badly geared sidewinders could be pitted against a small force of highly coordinated and equipped killers that coordinate over voice chat, and it could be fun challenge for both. The AI game master would learn with each encounter.
PVP missions could also provide (lend) standard issue fighters / ships / corvettes or equipment to even out the odds.

On these PVP missions the costs for ship destruction would be free courtesy of the Empire. (Even if you're playing on the alliance side, they are nuts these Imperials I tell you!). And respawn could be fast because a station or a carrier would be rather close by. But I'd actually favor the counterstrike model of respawning only at the end of a "round" of combat.


A procedural PVP system could also provide mission objectives and surprises in the middle of a PVP match. A convoy protection might turn into an infiltration system through an asteroid belt to attack a currently undefended outpost. Since the battleground objectives aren't known from the start, this would actually offer surprises and suspense, and also would force groups to plan for any eventuality. The procedural PVP mission generator ("AI game master") would see everything in the border systems and could scheme and plot to split and group and redirect players to always lead them into challenging encounters.

The PVP mission generator could also provide tactical assist to each player, like assigning individual positions and tasks and coordinating all players on the battlefield via and AI. In most multiplayer games the tactical component is left totally to the players so highly organized pvp guilds have a large advantage but also less of a challenge against an uncoordinated pug group. Placing an AI general in charge of a pug could greatly increase the enjoyment and reduce the yelling and screaming.

Even a simple implementation of dynamic and procedural battlegrounds could be immense fun and rather cheap to develop since all the systems are already in place. Also it would provide a unique selling point for ED since (almost) all other online game have static PVP content. Overall, PVP content is cheap.

This condensed / smaller PVP friendly part of the galaxy could also be suitable for free play where you have a higher chance for good PVP encounters. And other parts of the game like mining, trading and exploring could be fully integrated in the PVP missions.


The downside of this idea is of course that some kind of special PVP reward needs to be created. An extra Elite rating for PVP might be enough though.
People have killed for less.

 

[ASQ_dak]

Sorry, the game isn't out yet? Are you aware a full list of release features that I am not? How do you know this isn't catered for in some respects?

Newsletter 50 already announced a support for 6 way voice chat in game (not clear how that works as people jump to different systems)

 

[Daeron]

Unless this "universal" chat can go through Hyperspace, it could easily be seen as an artificial feature. I am all for "station chat" and other local stuff that would be technologically viable. But "gamey" chat, I'm not so fond of. You're driving me out of the Courier business here!

 

[Dejay]

Sorry, the game isn't out yet? Are you aware a full list of release features that I am not? How do you know this isn't catered for in some respects?

I'm asking! Is there something coming then? I would love to know.

I've read the DDF and there is nothing about social features. These features need to be tested and implemented early and actually would have been very helpful for beta. But they deliberately haven't been implemented. Why? Writing a good text chat is actually not absolutely trivial and Diablo III got a lot of flak for it's abyssal chat features ruining multiplayer. And voice chat is no substitution for text chat. You need a head set to use voice chat and I don't have one.

You already created a thread about at least some of this:

That is about PVP and has nothing to do with social features. Sorry, but what is the purpose of quoting an entire wall of unrelated text?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Unless this "universal" chat can go through Hyperspace, it could easily be seen as an artificial feature. I am all for "station chat" and other local stuff that would be technologically viable. But "gamey" chat, I'm not so fond of. You're driving me out of the Courier business here!

As mentioned in the OP, if you don't like it you can simply disable and ignore it. About the lore aspect, it is irrelevant from a game perspective and also faster than light communication already exists in ED (e.g. kill someone to get a bounty and jump to station, they know immediately).

 

[TiberiuS]

A system-wide chat is realistically possible, so this would be a feature that can be implemented. BUT: I hate reading/hearing chatter of others all the time some complaining, some insulting others, some telling random stuff. So there definitely need to be an option to disable specific channels.

The channel solution could work. There could be channels for Traders, Military and so on, also for private groups or all contacts within some Ls. I also thought of something like an emergency channel, where you can call for help to anyone within the system or specific range when being attacked by a pirate. This could be done via automatic transmission and send out your coordinates to your potential saviour (similar to the Distress calls in combat zones) so they can jump-in.

 

[_Flin_]

Unless this "universal" chat can go through Hyperspace, it could easily be seen as an artificial feature. I am all for "station chat" and other local stuff that would be technologically viable. But "gamey" chat, I'm not so fond of. You're driving me out of the Courier business here!

You mean artificial like a direct friend-to-friend chat that can go through Hyperspace?
Or artificial like a faster than light advanced system scanning device?

I was actually amazed to see the lack of multiplayer features from a game that sees itself as Multiplayer Online.

And the staples of the genre should be there
- Guilds/Alliances/Corporations whatever. With chat.
- Groups. With chat. Inviting players to a group. Sharing the spoils of war. Or the spoils of mining. Or just doing random stuff together.
- Player trade (that'll come at least pretty soon).
- Local chat. So I am in a station, where 100 players come through each hour, and I can't talk to a single one of them? Unless I launch and target their ship? Well... that's what I call "artificial". Because it makes me feel like a brain in a jar.

I can't care less about voice chat. I don't want to be forced to voice chat. I can't voice chat. When it's late at night people sleep where I live.

 

[Dai]

Not trying to be funny but if it isn't in the DDF lists then it isn't going to happen anytime soon, there is real stuff for them to be working on like .......umm the game release!

I am not sure what you are looking for ref coms, you can already talk with a friend regardless of what system either of you is in. They are giving us a 6 way friend chat for gamma. You can talk within system to non-friends as well as text the same way.

Ref this broadcasting chat you want, I can tell you now if the servers get full of people chatting at me I will stay in solo mode, I hate the random chat in other games full of trolling, offensive language, stupid noises because lots of kids can't sit quietly they have to be making some sort of noise.

To allow inter galaxy anyone to anyone chat would not be very realistic to the game and wouldn't really add that much. the social stuff can happen out of the game (plenty of resources for you to set stuff up).

 

[Daeron]

As mentioned in the OP, if you don't like it you can simply disable and ignore it. About the lore aspect, it is irrelevant from a game perspective and also faster than light communication already exists in ED (e.g. kill someone to get a bounty and jump to station, they know immediately).

From a "game perspective" human opinion is pretty much irrelevant as well. Only direct input is accepted.

Some randomly existing "explorer channel" would kill a good number of great stories taking place in space or even earthbound isolated locations, where you are faced with the unknown, and have to rely on your own wit and resources. It makes for a poor implementation of drama in space. Blind implementation of features for their own sake, is the exact opposite way of how to do it right, in my book at least. And a few good classics while at it.

You can't simply disable and ignore the state and condition of the game. For it is all connected. But not in quite the way suggested!

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is about PVP and has nothing to do with social features. Sorry, but what is the purpose of quoting an entire wall of unrelated text?

It certainly mentions guilds.

Guilds need content / raids / loot / magic travel / etc.; Corporations need a reason to exist, i.e. territorial control; trade embargoes; etc..

We'll see how the 6-person chat works. If system wide chat is introduced, I will simply switch it off.

 

[Hawkmoon]

You mean artificial like a direct friend-to-friend chat that can go through Hyperspace?
Or artificial like a faster than light advanced system scanning device?

I was actually amazed to see the lack of multiplayer features from a game that sees itself as Multiplayer Online.

And the staples of the genre should be there
- Guilds/Alliances/Corporations whatever. With chat.
- Groups. With chat. Inviting players to a group. Sharing the spoils of war. Or the spoils of mining. Or just doing random stuff together.
- Player trade (that'll come at least pretty soon).
- Local chat. So I am in a station, where 100 players come through each hour, and I can't talk to a single one of them? Unless I launch and target their ship? Well... that's what I call "artificial". Because it makes me feel like a brain in a jar.

I can't care less about voice chat. I don't want to be forced to voice chat. I can't voice chat. When it's late at night people sleep where I live.

I think you are thinking of a different game, there are no guilds in ED it is just you on your own trading/fighting/exploring. As for local chat that's not something that fits in with the Elite game world, you might see a commander that you know and send him a message but the rest of the galaxy are all out to get you so the less you tell them the better. There are lots of game out there that are all about gathering as many players together to make a clan/guild but as far as I know ED is fairly unique in promoting the individual rather than the group.

 

[_Flin_]

Not trying to be funny but if it isn't in the DDF lists then it isn't going to happen anytime soon, there is real stuff for them to be working on like .......umm the game release!

Yep. And noone ever noticed that there is no Multiplayer in their Multiplayer Online game.

I am not sure what you are looking for ref coms, you can already talk with a friend regardless of what system either of you is in. They are giving us a 6 way friend chat for gamma. You can talk within system to non-friends as well as text the same way.

But you can't make friends. You can't have a fast chat with someone. System is clumsy. You can't group up while playing. You can't share stuff. You can't groupchat. You cant station chat. You cant clanchat.

Ref this broadcasting chat you want, I can tell you now if the servers get full of people chatting at me I will stay in solo mode, I hate the random chat in other games full of trolling, offensive language, stupid noises because lots of kids can't sit quietly they have to be making some sort of noise.

Well, the difference is: For you the solution already exists. But if you want Multiplayer, and all you get is solo with player pirates... well... then there is no solution.

 

[Phobos]

you don't need chat channels and grouping mechanics if you don't have group content. That's my biggest issue with this game.

 

[Daeron]

You mean artificial like a direct friend-to-friend chat that can go through Hyperspace?
Or artificial like a faster than light advanced system scanning device?

I was actually amazed to see the lack of multiplayer features from a game that sees itself as Multiplayer Online.

And the staples of the genre should be there
- Guilds/Alliances/Corporations whatever. With chat.
- Groups. With chat. Inviting players to a group. Sharing the spoils of war. Or the spoils of mining. Or just doing random stuff together.
- Player trade (that'll come at least pretty soon).
- Local chat. So I am in a station, where 100 players come through each hour, and I can't talk to a single one of them? Unless I launch and target their ship? Well... that's what I call "artificial". Because it makes me feel like a brain in a jar.

I can't care less about voice chat. I don't want to be forced to voice chat. I can't voice chat. When it's late at night people sleep where I live.

Artificial, like in "ported over not for the sake of this environment, but merely because it exists somewhere else entirely".

 

[SuBSynk]

Please god no System chat function, that would be plain terrible. Wouldn't even make sense in game at all.

We all know how chat ends up in multi-player games, always people breaking immersion with their hatred, arguments and ongoing ranting/Spam etc...

Yup you can block em but can't block em fast enough and every gaming session to not ruin the experience.

No to corporations/guild etc too, i'm in a multi-gaming community but even though i'm i can still see how it would not help but hurt this game.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Part of the DDF - already argued for social tools ... gave a whole speech as to why it was critical in bringing people together to promote the community (which is what will make ED a long term success - people playing it) Agree as to why there shouldn't be something system wide, but station <--> station (at least of the same faction) should be there.

FDEV at the time were not listening.

<shrug>

 

[_Flin_]

I think you are thinking of a different game, there are no guilds in ED it is just you on your own trading/fighting/exploring. As for local chat that's not something that fits in with the Elite game world, you might see a commander that you know and send him a message but the rest of the galaxy are all out to get you so the less you tell them the better. There are lots of game out there that are all about gathering as many players together to make a clan/guild but as far as I know ED is fairly unique in promoting the individual rather than the group.

Well, it is marketed as "Epic Multiplayer Online" game.
But there is no Multiplayer, unless you like others shooting at you and stealing your stuff or you like to shoot at others and steal their stuff. So in the Elite Dangerous world people do not leave their space ship, don't have friends, don't have business partners?
Well, I know all the "Blabla Elite Fanboi blabla this is the special unique butterfly of games that fits to my special butterfly taste" talking points, but then why do this online multiplayer at all? Do it offline and solo.

Once there was the "Bartle-Test" for multiplayer online games.
It lists "Achiever", "Explorer", "Socializer" and "Killer" as archetypes.

While the Achievers and Killers are well catered to in ED, the Explorers got a big galaxy (although hardly any content and mechanics), the "Socializers" have almost nothing at all. And I am not even a socializer. But the apparent lack of all things group oriented is mind-boggling. Especially since the features are all well known and easy to implement.

And well, really nice that I get the griefers and psychopaths to shoot me down, but I can't go after them with friends and share the bounty. Or meet friendly players in the first place. Because there are no friendly players, only docking obstacles.

 

[Dai]

I agree the current implementation is clumsy, I totally agree it would be nice to group up mid game and add friends mid game etc so there you do have a valid point.

Ref the multiplayer I think that is purely a point of view, I do see other players flying around I have had some good fights with the same, and "living" in this persistant universe with other live players is my definition of multiplayer. IF however you are looking for more arena style constant busy PVP action - then this isn't going to work for you, because I don't think the game will every be like that. But because it isn't satisfying your lust for PVP action doesn't mean it isn't multiplayer.

I don't believe the game is solo with pirates, you can play in a group, the one concession I will give you is that it is not very good at keeping friends together in open online mode. Which I hope they are working on, because that will allow hunting in packs, pirate groups, squadrons etc. I do think this is the ultimate goal of the game it just hasn't yet been fully implemented. Lets see how things pan out with the upcoming releases.

 

[SuBSynk]

Part of the DDF - already argued for social tools ... gave a whole speech as to why it was critical in bringing people together to promote the community (which is what will make ED a long term success - people playing it) Agree as to why there shouldn't be something system wide, but station <--> station (at least of the same faction) should be there.

FDEV at the time were not listening.

<shrug>

In station chat maybe could be fun, it would still get ruined by the minority of crazies that would should the loudest and spam etc but it would be a nice feature i agree.