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

[Robert Maynard]

It doesn't. It mentioned alliances but it's unclear if they are parties, if they even have group chat or if they are permanent. There is a giant black hole gaping where a consistent design should be.

Your OP in the thread I quoted mentions guilds - not the game design, thankfully.

 

[_Flin_]

It doesn't. It mentioned alliances but it's unclear if they are parties, if they even have group chat or if they are permanent. There is a giant black hole gaping where a consistent design should be.

Multiplayer DDF is uninspiring at best.
The alliances, as I understand them, are something like a free for all democratic pick up raid. Everybody can invite. People can be kicked by voting.
There is no leadership (as a former guild leader of a 120 ppl guild I have experienced that there HAS to be good leadership. If only to mediate conflicts and calm the waves). There are no rights. No Titles and Responsibilities. No chat.

Slaved hyperdrives. Shared crimes and bounties. And the systems tries to keep all on the same island. That's all. Not even a chat.

Yes but you have to click around with the mouse to actually hail them, there is no info sound you got a player message etc. The implementation itself is lacking. It is bad. FD is ignoring this problem. Also the current design seems to focus on "group shards" instead of "guilds", so you could not even make contact with a different group since you can't see or interact with them inside the game.

There is a nice scene in a Jingles video, where he gets hailed by a pirate, wants to tell him where to stick it. He presses <ENTER>, the Comm opens, he types something, presses return and it vanishes into the air. Twice.

If only because most games implement: <ENTER> type stuff <ENTER> => message sent.

Saying you can use external tools and alt-tab to chat outside the game really is silly because it totally breaks immersion.

And how would you get to players to use the external tools with in the first place?

 

[JackOakley]

I think if ED doesn't have much better multiplayer features (chat, groups - which then share bounties/mission rewards between group members, corps etc), at release (or at least very soon after release) then the reviewers will trash that aspect of ED. I don't want that to happen but I know how unforgiving reviewers are.

 

[Dejay]

As for guilds, as others have said, the main 'guilds' in this game are the factions, I realise this is not ideal for some, the counter of 'well I was in the Horde in WoW and still in a guild' is of course valid. But, and this is the big 'but', the one pilot, one ship element in this game is vital to what they are trying to create in terms of atmosphere, in terms of an, (occasional at least), sense of isolation in the vastness of the galaxy

Again you can simply disable chat if you don't like spam. Guilds are nothing like factions that is a silly argument. And if you want to play solo and not in a guild, nobody is keeping you from that. You have made no argument against social features.

 

[Daeron]

Sorry but you are not making any sense. It's understood and I've replied to you before that these features are OPTIONAL. If you don't like them, don't use them. So your argument that it would negatively impact you is absolutely facetious.

And if you don't like multiplayer interaction just play solo.

I have duly noted the optional part, and tried hard to point out that in a multi-player environment, nothing is truly optional. As for not liking multiplayer interaction, I like it very much. Long distance calls are not very "interactive" though. A fact you seem to completely ignore for some reason.

 

[Theodrid]

Again you can simply disable chat if you don't like spam. Guilds are nothing like factions that is a silly argument. And if you want to play solo and not in a guild, nobody is keeping you from that. You have made no argument against social features.

Except you cropped the quote, as I said about chat, it is okay to 'turn it off' as long as it does not become the 'go to' place required for doing certain things, (which it may).

I have made plenty of arguments against social features you are just entrenched in your position, (which is fine), and unable or unwilling to see them.

 

[Dejay]

There is no leadership (as a former guild leader of a 120 ppl guild I have experienced that there HAS to be good leadership. If only to mediate conflicts and calm the waves).

Word! Groups always need a "kernel" around which they crystallize. It can even be an idea.

 

[hunvagy]

So what is wrong in making sure players at least NOTICE when someone hails them? Your argument seems to want to defend a bad implementation with arguments that are illogical. Why play multiplayer online if you don#t want to interact with players?

Nothing wrong with that, I wouldn't mind if there was an indicator for that. And i play a multiplayer online game with my friends, which doesn't mean I want to talk to every random that lags into my view and smashes his/her ship against the station wall, because they don't know which side is up.

Luckily Elite has the option for private groups, and there's already examples of large groups that actually appeal to both me and my friends who bought into the game. So I'll probably just join one of those and then I won't have the problem of who I talk to.

If the comm channels adhere to this grouping and I won't see the stuff from open inside the group, then go ahead, have your chat system. If it doesn't, then no thank you.

Also there is nothing wrong with group content, especially procedurally generated missions that a balanced for a larger group would be awesome. That doesn't mean that ED will turn into WoW at all, just that groups of player can have fun cooperating any time they want. Procedural generation would lead this into a completely different direction than static content raids etc.

Yes, you pointed out the only problem I have with group content in general. If it's exclusively for large groups. If that won't be the case, sure sign me up. But having to PUG just to advance is something I would rather not take part in, because it feels forced and not "doing what I want".

 

[tagos]

This week we've been pretty firmly told this is an MMO not a Solo Offline game. That being so it needs opt-in social features.

In an MMO i want to be part of and be able to communicate with a formal player grouping. Call it a fleet or a clan. Ideally I want in-game voice comm as provided in some games but okay - raid call or whatever is fine for that. But I do need a fleet text channel because I know many people do not have mics or even sound for various reasons.

I also need impromptu group communications. For this we need the game to provide the voice and text.

But we also need the game mechanic to provide group features. Linked hyperspace drives so we can form escorted convoys for one. But going back a step we need to be able seamlessly to instance together in-game. This is absolutely basic and has to be there at launch.

Elder Scrolls Online made the mistake of thinking that didn't matter and have had the devil's own job making it work because of the other features that only work because for some frankly bizarre reason they imagined grouping wasn't an important feature of an MMO.

In any form of MMO people want to group with who they want, when they want. No hoops, no obstacles and not when the game decides they meet the specific local conditions. I've a fear that the instancing mechanism of ED is getting in the way here.

We seem to be getting some things but it doesn't sound within a light year of what an MMO needs to have at launch.

 

[_Flin_]

Also there is nothing wrong with group content, especially procedurally generated missions that a balanced for a larger group would be awesome. That doesn't mean that ED will turn into WoW at all, just that groups of player can have fun cooperating any time they want. Procedural generation would lead this into a completely different direction than static content raids etc.

First group content would be:
- actually be able to meet other players and form a group with them.

then:

- being able to talk/chat to each other
- Being able to share bounties, mission rewards, exploration data.
- Being able to pick up stuff they "earned". And see the stuff they somehow acquired. Be it cargo from another ship or metal from an asteroid

Not that hard.

You don't really NEED group content, there are enough possibilities to set up your own group content. But you can't group with others unless you already know them or use 3rd party tools. Like this forum.

EDIT: As a side note Elite wants to do everything different. That goes as far as redefining what a "group" is. Which in Elite are the players that sit on the same instance island as you do.

 

[Daeron]

Again you can simply disable chat if you don't like spam. Guilds are nothing like factions that is a silly argument. And if you want to play solo and not in a guild, nobody is keeping you from that. You have made no argument against social features.

This game should connect formal grouping to actual factions, and not dodge their own virtual fabric by letting you live in your own little bubble.

 

[[ADK] Spyderbyte88]

yeh this system is lacking for META players like myself that are looking to start a group based around it, i will just wait and see what the future holds, no need to jump on the hate bandwagon when i love the game thus far.

 

[Dejay]

Except you cropped the quote, as I said about chat, it is okay to 'turn it off' as long as it does not become the 'go to' place required for doing certain things, (which it may).

I have made plenty of arguments against social features you are just entrenched in your position, (which is fine), and unable or unwilling to see them.

Yes I've cropped. Fine I'll reply to your other arguments also.

The problem with the 'don't want it, don't use it' argument is that if, for example, 'station chat' became the default place/channel to group, to discuss problems in the system etc then it would almost have to be used whether you want it or not.

Well you are making an argument FOR the advantages of chats, not against. If it becomes the default place, that should tell you something, that it's a good thing. You don't actually mention why this would be a bad thing.

A better solution to grouping up for a difficult NPC for example would be via a pilot message on the bulletin board, on acceptance you would be able to comm the pilot who posted it no matter what system they were in and you would be able to form a wing, (of sorts). The 'make the galaxy feel alive' argument, (in relation to system wide chat), holds some validity but falls down for me as soon as it turns into 'HODOR', 'Chuck Norris x, y, z', 'shut up noob' and the like, which, sadly, it will inevitably do so.

I would have absolutely nothing against a "Group finder" like you suggest but it is not an argument against more social features:
First it would result in the exact same "Hodors"
Second it codifies social interaction into a "corsett" and limits social interaction and emergent gameplay.

As others have said, you can form your groups/guilds/clans to some degree in the 'groups' section of these forums, you can post your TS details on there

That doesn't make sense. Why is it better to have the user post on the forum instead of having better suited, more convenient and more immersive ingame features to do this?

As for guilds, as others have said, the main 'guilds' in this game are the factions, I realise this is not ideal for some, the counter of 'well I was in the Horde in WoW and still in a guild' is of course valid.

So you refute your own argument here. Why even bring it up as an argument then? Yes factions are not like guilds. They are too large. If you are a pirate you might not care about federation etc. The "guilds = faction" argument doesn't make sense at all and I don't understand why people keep repeating it. It's like saying you don't need social features because you could go to a real life party.

But, and this is the big 'but', the one pilot, one ship element in this game is vital to what they are trying to create in terms of atmosphere

About the last part. I get that and the "lone wolf" flair is cool. But it has absolutely nothing to do with social features. You can simply disable them and not join a guild. You have made no argument against social features because you didn't explain how exactly social features would negatively impact your lone wolf experience.

 

[Dejay]

yeh this system is lacking for META players like myself that are looking to start a group based around it, i will just wait and see what the future holds, no need to jump on the hate bandwagon when i love the game thus far.

I'm not hating at all I don't mean you specifically but I just want to clarify that. Being upset and demanding improvement shouldn't be construed as being hateful or creating a "toxic" atmosphere. Personally I think people should be less defensive and be open to criticism and new (or old!) ideas.

A lot of the backlash seems to come from the fact that these ideas / gameplay elements are used in other games. That is a "genetic fallacy". An argument / feature should not be judged on where it came from, but on it's own merits. Or because of the "slippery slope fallacy". Adding guilds / corps / fleets to ED doesn't mean it has to turn into WoW because you can procedurally generate content for solo or groups of arbitrary size.

 

[Theodrid]

Yes I've cropped. Fine I'll reply to your other arguments also..

Thanks for acknowledging that.

Well you are making an argument FOR the advantages of chats, not against. If it becomes the default place, that should tell you something, that it's a good thing. You don't actually mention why this would be a bad thing.

Except that I'm not, if it becomes the 'go to' place for those of us who do not want to see infantile chat.

I would have absolutely nothing against a "Group finder" like you suggest but it is not an argument against more social features:
First it would result in the exact same "Hodors"
Second it codifies social interaction into a "corsett" and limits social interaction and emergent gameplay.

Not necessarily, it could be a kind of pre fabricated form you tick and post on the bulletin board, it does not need to contain 'Hodors' - there are ways around that. And having it 'limited' is as much of a compromise as I and others are willing to make on the matter.

That doesn't make sense. Why is it better to have the user post on the forum instead of having better suited, more convenient and more immersive ingame features to do this?

Because this game does not have to exist inside the box that WoW, Rift, SWTOR and many others created for you - and neither do you.

So you refute your own argument here. Why even bring it up as an argument then? Yes factions are not like guilds. They are too large. If you are a pirate you might not care about federation etc. The "guilds = faction" argument doesn't make sense at all and I don't understand why people keep repeating it. It's like saying you don't need social features because you could go to a real life party.

Being able to see yours and others point of view does not 'refute my argument' and the bit you quoted did have a fairly large BUT at the end of it which you address below, so please do not quote me out of context because without that BUT, yes it does look like I'm 'refuting my own argument' - the BUT means I am not.

About the last part. I get that and the "lone wolf" flair is cool. But it has absolutely nothing to do with social features. You can simply disable them and not join a guild. You have made no argument against social features because you didn't explain how exactly social features would negatively impact your lone wolf experience.

Of course it has to do with social features how can you be a lone wolf, ever feel isolated if you are in a large group discussing last nights Game of Thrones episode.

 

[Dejay]

First group content would be:
- actually be able to meet other players and form a group with them.

then:

- being able to talk/chat to each other
- Being able to share bounties, mission rewards, exploration data.
- Being able to pick up stuff they "earned". And see the stuff they somehow acquired. Be it cargo from another ship or metal from an asteroid

Yeah and lacking that, the developers should make / publish / explain what their actual design goals are in respect to this. And there should at least be some essentials on release. And not just "what we can fit in" but based on a design vision on how multiplayer is going to work.

 

[_Flin_]

A lot of the backlash seems to come from the fact that these ideas / gameplay elements are used in other games. That is a "genetic fallacy". An argument / feature should not be judged on where it came from, but on it's own merits. Or because of the "slippery slope fallacy". Adding guilds / corps / fleets to ED doesn't mean it has to turn into WoW because you can procedurally generate content for solo or groups of arbitrary size.

Absolutely. Why are the grouping features the same in almost any MMO? Because they work.
Even in World of Tanks you have Platoons and Clans.

It just makes sense to play together. Because for many people playing together is fun. And having guilds/alliances/clans/corporation means to find people that share the same attitude towards the game as you do. Are like you. Age, background, sense of humor.

And yes, one can overdo it. As in LotRo, where there was so much group content that you just couldn't advance as a solo player if you didn't find the person that was just at the same point in some 5-quests-after-another-with-at-least-3-people storyline as you where.
Unless you were willing to grind 4 hours for a mid-tier levelup.

EDIT: As a sidenote, I prefer playing solo. But in every game, I am always in a clan, always in a guild, and regularly do grouping to achieve some things I cannot do alone.
The people are the fun.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Well you are making an argument FOR the advantages of chats, not against. If it becomes the default place, that should tell you something, that it's a good thing. You don't actually mention why this would be a bad thing.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The argument being made is that once a chat channel is the default channel for information it also becomes the default channel for trash talk and all the other unsavoury aspects players want to avoid. You option of 'turn it off then' becomes unfeasable.

So you refute your own argument here. Why even bring it up as an argument then? Yes factions are not like guilds. They are too large. If you are a pirate you might not care about federation etc. The "guilds = faction" argument doesn't make sense at all and I don't understand why people keep repeating it. It's like saying you don't need social features because you could go to a real life party.

Guilds are not wanted. The problem with guilds is that they are the precursor to all that is bad about other MMOs. Guild specific content. Territory control. Guild over individual etc. Fortunately it is the very thing DB wants to avoid in ED (maybe the fact that all these things AREN'T included is a hint).

About the last part. I get that and the "lone wolf" flair is cool. But it has absolutely nothing to do with social features. You can simply disable them and not join a guild. You have made no argument against social features because you didn't explain how exactly social features would negatively impact your lone wolf experience.

You cannot simply disable them without game consequence. Not joining a guild in an MMO with guilds means you loose by default. (See above for both points) and see EvE for examples. One thing that has become perfectly clear from your posts is that you don't yet 'get' what ED is about. Once you do you will understand why such 'social' aspects like you are proposing are given so little thought.

 

[LukeP]

Yeah and lacking that, the developers should make / publish / explain what their actual design goals are in respect to this. And there should at least be some essentials on release. And not just "what we can fit in" but based on a design vision on how multiplayer is going to work.

Especially given such features are buy/no buy triggers.

We have already seen how lack of pronounced design statements led people to believe their interpretations are The Truth.

In absence of actual systems, clear sign of what is going to be implemented is next best thing.

And remember that we are pretty much stuck with what will be in on Saturday till first expansion.

 

[Daeron]

I'm not hating at all I don't mean you specifically but I just want to clarify that. Being upset and demanding improvement shouldn't be construed as being hateful or creating a "toxic" atmosphere. Personally I think people should be less defensive and be open to criticism and new (or old!) ideas.

A lot of the backlash seems to come from the fact that these ideas / gameplay elements are used in other games. That is a "genetic fallacy". An argument / feature should not be judged on where it came from, but on it's own merits. Or because of the "slippery slope fallacy". Adding guilds / corps / fleets to ED doesn't mean it has to turn into WoW because you can procedurally generate content for solo or groups of arbitrary size.

I would rather see the native environment be expanded in a natural and emergent fashion, for if a feature is truly needed, it tend to surface that way. Bringing expectations and features from external sources into it, is more like the style of that "other game". And I must say that if I wanted this game to be as bland and uninteresting as possible, that would certainly be the right way to go about it. Would probably be a great success for the whole family. But it would suck as a re-imagining of Elite, unless being "neither here or there", should prove great for a change.