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

[Joe Spivey]

Why are the grouping features the same in almost any MMO?

So then, you have to ask yourself why have DB and the devs DELIBERATELY NOT GONE THAT ROUTE? Do you think they don't understand how other MMOs work? Do you think they lack experience and that you must therefore show them the way and guide them into the light of sameness that is every other MMO? They have chosen the route they have because they are making the game THEY want to make. We are invited along for the ride. Oh, and before you start witrh.... 'but but it doesn't make economic sense'.... Well, FD have been making games for a lot of years so i think they understand THAT aspect too.

 

[Dejay]

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

If you do not want to see infantile chat, turn it off. You can't argue against something optional if it doesn't affect you negatively.

If you don't want to use chat channels and they did become the "go to" place then you are still free to message players one on one. There is no reason to assume that lfg channels would somehow impede your ability or the success rate of interacting 1:1. Again you can't argue against a feature that others would like if it doesn't affect you negatively.

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.

I think actually static bulletin board messages would exacerbate the number of "hodors" since they are displayed longer with less effort. They would have to be moderated which won't happen.

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.

This is the unicorn argument. You would have to describe how it actually could work well. Like I said, going to forum is basically a trolls argument. In what shape or form would ED be so "unique" and "different" that people playing it won't be affected by a lack of social features?

You imply that I'm incapable of thinking "outside the box". If you can explain to me how it works outside the box I'm listening But being outside the box has no merit in and of itself. If the feature / gameplay is good / fun / works then that is what it is, and where it came from is irrelevant (genetic fallacy).

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.

But the "but" part is but an argument dealing about the unrelated atmosphere of the "lone wolf" gameplay. How does it relate to "Factions = guilds"? I don't think it does. You can have lone wolf gameplay and still a corp that roleplays as a greedy corrupt sub faction of the federation. Sounds fun! So even if the but part is correct it doesn't validate the incorrect "factions = guilds" argument. It's not about others "point of view". The argument is asinine from the beginning.

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

Social features are optional! You do NOT need to be in station / clan / whatever chat. I fully sympathize with this style of play but it is not impacted by the

If you don't want to use chat channels and they did become the "go to" place then you are still free to message players one on one. There is no reason to assume that chat channels would somehow impede your ability or the success rate of that. Again you can't argue against a feature that others would like if it doesn't affect you negatively.

 

[Dejay]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Please don't insult or bait. There is no need for that.

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.

There is no reason to assume you couldn't do it the same way you are doing it right now? What keeps you from doing it in the forum or wherever? Sorry but I don't see the point you are trying to make. How would posting in the forum / using TS / messaging a player become unfeasable?

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).

You are wrong. Guilds are wanted because I and others want them. Slippery slope fallacy: Guilds do not need to lead to bad gameplay. Simply does not follow. See EvE and WoW for examples how you can perfectly play solo without loosing out. Procedural generation can "scale" missions tailored for a specific group. ED is != static world MMOs.

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

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.

Genetic & slippery slope fallacy. Does not follow.

 

[Dejay]

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.

There is no reason not to make them optional, even if you do play in the all group with a large group. But you basically outline why I think the "group / shard" feature of ED is bad: Once in a group, you cannot meet new people inside the game. Only players who post on the forum and ask for an invite.

It makes the game less appealing because a lot of emergent player generated gameplay is lost.

 

[Theodrid]

If you do not want to see infantile chat, turn it off. You can't argue against something optional if it doesn't affect you negatively.

But it could, as you concede later, depending on what group elements may or may not be in game.

If you don't want to use chat channels and they did become the "go to" place then you are still free to message players one on one. There is no reason to assume that lfg channels would somehow impede your ability or the success rate of interacting 1:1. Again you can't argue against a feature that others would like if it doesn't affect you negatively.

Of course it could impede that ability, and you, sadly do not decide whether or not or how it may effect my and others gameplay.

I think actually static bulletin board messages would exacerbate the number of "hodors" since they are displayed longer with less effort. They would have to be moderated which won't happen.

That is ridiculous, so a pre-rendered form on a bulleting boards that a player just ticks a box in and does not 'type out' contains 'HODORS' how exactly?

This is the unicorn argument. You would have to describe how it actually could work well. Like I said, going to forum is basically a trolls argument. In what shape or form would ED be so "unique" and "different" that people playing it won't be affected by a lack of social features?

Yes, a 'unicorn argument' simply on the grounds that it is not your argument, and the troll comment - really? The way Elite is different is the very fact that it is not following the model of all those clone MMO's, simple as that, players can interact, (hopefully better than now in these upcoming releases), same with communication, and organising, the problem seems to be that you need it 'all on a plate' in game, sorry, this is not another clone MMO.

You imply that I'm incapable of thinking "outside the box". If you can explain to me how it works outside the box I'm listening But being outside the box has no merit in and of itself. If the feature / gameplay is good / fun / works then that is what it is, and where it came from is irrelevant (genetic fallacy).

It has no merit to you, to others it does, I am a long time MMO player, I have lead and been a part of many, many guilds - and I still am in a couple og MMO's actually, I am looking forward to a different experience in Elite D, I sometimes want to play different games, I sometimes do not need to see chat and guild spam like in all those other games, if you do want it to 'feel like the rest' I get that, some of us do not. As for 'how it works outside the box' well, those are the points we are debating.

But the "but" part is but an argument dealing about the unrelated atmosphere of the "lone wolf" gameplay. How does it relate to "Factions = guilds"? I don't think it does. You can have lone wolf gameplay and still a corp that roleplays as a greedy corrupt sub faction of the federation. Sounds fun! So even if the but part is correct it doesn't validate the incorrect "factions = guilds" argument. It's not about others "point of view". The argument is asinine from the beginning.

I'm not sure this is about me so much, I get the impression that DB and Frontier want you to feel somewhat alone and isolated, not a an individual choice but as part of the game, a lot, (not all), of these social wants go against that.

Social features are optional! You do NOT need to be in station / clan / whatever chat. I fully sympathize with this style of play but it is not impacted by the

If you don't want to use chat channels and they did become the "go to" place then you are still free to message players one on one. There is no reason to assume that chat channels would somehow impede your ability or the success rate of that. Again you can't argue against a feature that others would like if it doesn't affect you negatively.

You cannot guarantee me that they will not become a vital thing if implemented, and then any lone wolf may feel obliged to use them, hell, may have to use them. You assume I am a lone wolf, to a degree I am, but I do look forward to helping others and grouping with friends as and when necessary in Elite - it is achievable as is now, (well, network issues to one side), and will improve no doubt in the future, I believe that to be adequate. The problem comes with clan and social feature creep, and it would happen, and I and others, and thankfully David and his team seem to share that view.

 

[Dejay]

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.

Actually I would fully agree with (optional) "faction chats" or bulletin boards. Where you can post "Looking for patriots to start invasion of imperial system XYZ".

So the addition of more social features doesn't keep you from actually improving on the idea of factions, but also allow you to create "sub factions" or "splinter groups" e.g. player generated gameplay.

Why would you be against a group creating their own faction?

 

[hunvagy]

There is no reason not to make them optional, even if you do play in the all group with a large group. But you basically outline why I think the "group / shard" feature of ED is bad: Once in a group, you cannot meet new people inside the game. Only players who post on the forum and ask for an invite.

It makes the game less appealing because a lot of emergent player generated gameplay is lost.

Why not, I could just switch from the group to open whenever I want. It all depends how open pans out, and how it aligns to how I want to play the game. Also even if you join a group, you are not required to log in into that group all the time.

And for you it makes the game less appealing, for me a lot more appealing, because I decide whom I want to meet, not outside influences. But I guess it's good we don't agree on everything. There are a lot of people who will play open, another batch will play in groups.

As for what actual group content is planned, we will have to wait and see. And with group I don't mean private groups, but what the DDF called Alliances or I believe it's Wings now. Which for now is sadly absent from the beta build, and is one of the things I hope will show up latest in gamma, or otherwise there will be a lot more moaning then just the missing offline mode.

 

[scimon]

Has anyone mentioned the idea of having artificial lag on comms? Because personally I think it'd be cool if when doing comms with someone 2400LS away you had to 40 minutes for a response, having grown up reading Sci Fi that sort of thing happened all the time. FTL with Light speed comms makes for interesting times and the comms in game shoudl reflect it in my opinion.

Speeding them up a bit in Supercruise make sense I guess, but still some kind of lag based on distance and current speed would be grand.

For those of us who want this to be a sim not just and MMO.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is no reason not to make them optional, even if you do play in the all group with a large group. But you basically outline why I think the "group / shard" feature of ED is bad: Once in a group, you cannot meet new people inside the game. Only players who post on the forum and ask for an invite.

It makes the game less appealing because a lot of emergent player generated gameplay is lost.

Are you referring to the private group feature?

 

[LtCasey]

For those of us new to Elite: Dangerous who A) Don't have friends already B) Aren't part of an Elite group or community outside of the game, how do you suppose we "find" these friends or players on Voicecomms without pursuing them Offline first? Is that not an incredibly flawed logic? You're asking for a feature to be missing to bypass it with external systems. That's not only unfriendly to new players but a pretty terrible user experience.

May I do invite to this group?

http://elitepve.com/viewforum.php?f=1

ET voila, more than 800 mates to Play with, interact, communicate and propably more.

See, no ingame "social tools" needed, other than the group function.

Regards

 

[Daeron]

Genetic & slippery slope fallacy. Does not follow.

Of course. We probably need to import the "follow" feature for that.

 

[Seonid]

It makes the game less appealing because a lot of emergent player generated gameplay is lost.

Players don't generate events, they react and contribute towards them if they choose to.

 

[tagos]

Frontier have us fan's money. Now they need the money off other gamers. Gamers expect an MMO to have social as standard. You want to sell to and keep new players you need to provide them.

 

[emberil]

Much needed features

 

[Dejay]

That is ridiculous, so a pre-rendered form on a bulleting boards that a player just ticks a box in and does not 'type out' contains 'HODORS' how exactly?

Ok that wouldn't. But that sounds complicated and not very flexible. It would be better to be able to post free form text to describe what you want to do. Else you limit gameplay emerging from multiplayer.

Yes, a 'unicorn argument' simply on the grounds that it is not your argument, and the troll comment - really?

Yes it is a rude and offensive argument. Yes you can troll without appearing impolite. "Oh you want to find players to play with in the game? Just post on the forum and install this TS and buy a teamspeak server for $10 per month". It's asinine.

It has no merit to you, to others it does

No what I mean is it has no merit as an argument. You are welcome to have the opinion. But in a discussion you have to say "this feature is good / bad because it causes X/Y". You cannot say "this feature is bad because WoW uses it.". The latter is a fallacy. Either make a rational argument or it's just opinion. I'm not saying that opinions about what you feel is fun do not have merit.

Of course it could impede that ability, and you, sadly do not decide whether or not or how it may effect my and others gameplay.

You cannot guarantee me that they will not become a vital thing if implemented, and then any lone wolf may feel obliged to use them, hell, may have to use them. You assume I am a lone wolf, to a degree I am, but I do look forward to helping others and grouping with friends as and when necessary in Elite - it is achievable as is now, (well, network issues to one side), and will improve no doubt in the future, I believe that to be adequate.

How could it impede that ability? I don't see how it could.

It is not for me to guarantee anything. It is for you to demonstrate how it could. I am saying social features would make the game better, and you are arguing against it. You are saying players would use them, they would become "defacto" but you are not saying how that would actually impact you negatively. How can you feel "left out" of something you do not want to have any part of?

And note that I actually want better one to one communications as well. Currently messaging is incredibly cumbersome, has been for a long time. This is a grave design sin that should not be ignored by the devs.

The problem comes with clan and social feature creep, and it would happen, and I and others, and thankfully David and his team seem to share that view.

It already came and David Braben disagrees with you. The part in the newsletter QA where he clearly says that large player groups should have an effect on the universe. And it naturally follows that a single lone wolf will not have the same influence. He doesn't want offline mode because it would be "an empty game".

But all of that does not mean ED will turn into WoW. It's a slippery slope fallacy (a non sequitur, something that doesn't make sense in a discussion). It's the same type of fallacious argument people use against gay marriage, that it would result in bestiality or incest.

 

[LeiHarper]

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

Thank you for the plug, that was my quote on Reddit and came after I created a similar thread to this in the official Beta forum:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60838

Mods, it might be good if these threads were merged because they cover exactly the same topic.

 

[LoSt]

So then, you have to ask yourself why have DB and the devs DELIBERATELY NOT GONE THAT ROUTE? Do you think they don't understand how other MMOs work? Do you think they lack experience and that you must therefore show them the way and guide them into the light of sameness that is every other MMO? They have chosen the route they have because they are making the game THEY want to make. We are invited along for the ride. Oh, and before you start witrh.... 'but but it doesn't make economic sense'.... Well, FD have been making games for a lot of years so i think they understand THAT aspect too.

http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/

More recently, none that are persistent or overly social.

 

[_Flin_]

So then, you have to ask yourself why have DB and the devs DELIBERATELY NOT GONE THAT ROUTE? Do you think they don't understand how other MMOs work? Do you think they lack experience and that you must therefore show them the way and guide them into the light of sameness that is every other MMO? They have chosen the route they have because they are making the game THEY want to make. We are invited along for the ride. Oh, and before you start witrh.... 'but but it doesn't make economic sense'.... Well, FD have been making games for a lot of years so i think they understand THAT aspect too.

I do not like your tone at all, so have a negrep.

IMHO they have a conflict in regards to "this is elite. One man one ship 1000 Credits" and "Multiplayer".

The inability to prioritize on these features leads to a chimera, worst of both worlds. Thats why we currently have neither an offline client nor meaningful cooperative multiplayer experience.

And no, I am not invited for the ride. I am a paying customer.

 

[Dejay]

Has anyone mentioned the idea of having artificial lag on comms? Because personally I think it'd be cool if when doing comms with someone 2400LS away you had to 40 minutes for a response, having grown up reading Sci Fi that sort of thing happened all the time. FTL with Light speed comms makes for interesting times and the comms in game shoudl reflect it in my opinion.

Haha yeah that is a cool idea But I don't think it would really work well for an actual game. The devs favor gameplay > sim.

I've also had the idea that if you pirate or kill someone, he sends a record to that to the nearest authorities at light speed. But since you can fly faster than light you can actually intercept the message after the fight, essentially "cleaning up" the evidence

 

[Daeron]

Actually I would fully agree with (optional) "faction chats" or bulletin boards. Where you can post "Looking for patriots to start invasion of imperial system XYZ".

So the addition of more social features doesn't keep you from actually improving on the idea of factions, but also allow you to create "sub factions" or "splinter groups" e.g. player generated gameplay.

Why would you be against a group creating their own faction?

To be a faction of their own, means they have the power to ignore the existing ones. It is a way to override the importance of your surroundings, by creating something that is set apart by nature. Why should they be allowed to operate freely, when the universe is bound by laws, and restrictions, and the powers that have taken hold? For there will be a great number of them, and they will live on, secure in the knowledge they are entitled to be forever under the protection of whatever excuse that makes them not ripe for attack. By the *real* powers that this universe employ. They are just more real, being players. That's not right.