That misrepresenting what I've said (straw man). Please do not try to derail this thread like you tried in the beginning by quoting an unrelated wall of text post of mine. Lets keep the discussion productive please.
Last edited:
DEVS: Why no social features like chat channels, guilds / corps and parties?
- Thread starter Dejay
- Start date
- Status
That misrepresenting what I've said (straw man). Please do not try to derail this thread like you tried in the beginning by quoting an unrelated wall of text post of mine. Lets keep the discussion productive please.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Really? So when you say:
you're not really trying to tell other people how to play? Also, the first post I quoted is entirely relevant as it refers to PvP (which you seem to like) and keeping everyone in open-online would increase the number of players that you could meet.
There not that different really, but what I meant was that, while it may be something that 'could' be done without for ships (like now for instance), it's pretty much a pre-requisite for first person walking around type stuff. The reason being that this can be seen as a more personal way of playing rather than impersonal ships and not having a 'voice' while walking around is quiet alien to most people (in real life). Besides, it's massively better than 'speech bubbles' which you just know will be asked for after the first person walking stuff is implemented
True. Btw the "flair" I would imagine for local chat is that it is a kind of radio channel like truckers use on the road. I think this image fits quite well for spaceship trucking as well
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Correct. I'm merely suggesting that the game would be better if it's designed better or the function of the group/shard feature explained or named better. But if you (mis) communicate "make a private group to play with your friends" you are doing the game a disservice. I'm not telling anyone how to play.
I would strongly disagree. Even without all those features permanent player groups can create their own gameplay. It's MORE important now than later to give the game "life" and make it more interesting and long term. When the group finder was added to WoW, the need to be in a guild went down.
Maynard gives the perfect example:
I don't see this as a concern at all. First it adds "color" to the game. If this happens the players just created new gameplay. Space will be more interesting if you would know that certain systems are controlled by certain groups. Since there are more than enough to go around this doesn't really limit you at all. Worst case you can just drop to solo but that shouldn't be even necessary. Sol or other core systems will be a very high security system where it is unlikely you'll be able to harass players on a large scale.
So I would welcome if I would stumble accross a large group or "fleet" of other players doing their thing. They might be miners or traders or explorers or pirates. I might have to run! But it's something that NPCs will never be able to show as interesting as a group of players can! Maybe two warring squadrons of imperial / federal commanders.
just no we also need any Guilds what good would it do that we get in 1-2 Years a Goonsswarm? no thanks!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The definition of "better" in terms of the game is key here. Not everyone will agree on that.
For some, making a private group to play with their friends will indeed be the best option - E: D was advertised as having this game feature from the outset.
Fair enough - you are expressing your opinion - we all have those and they do not all agree.
Having the local station chat not available everywhere might be a good idea. I would say 90% of the systems have them, but if you go into one that doesn't have it, you would really feel "different". So it might be a cool way to differentiate different areas.
But communication in ED is already faster than light. You can kill someone, jump to another system they immediately know you've killed someone. For me lore reasons cannot stand in the way of these fundamental "meta" features. It is easy to mentally or emotionally separate these different levels. You also have a keyboard and a monitor in front of you and a main menu. Immersion has it's limits.
For a massive multiplayer game the option to chat and be in a community with other players is more important. It's optional! Often I don't want to chat either, but it's nice that it's there. It makes if feel like I'm wasting less time sitting alone in front of the computer.
The idea of time delayed messages between systems, but I think the game would have to be designed around that. You can already jump faster than light and communication of for example your crimes is also reported instantly. Or chatting with friends on the other side of the sector. And for such a fundamental gameplay aspect as building a community in the game lore reasons really can't stand in the way.
About the global chat, a truly global "general" or "trade" chat would not be possible and would not make sense of course. Revealing secrets etc would happen on the forums and reddit already though. But specific chats like:
-Newbie help
-Trading in sector XYZ
-Explorers
-Federal security forces
etc. would might make sense. Again fully optional to join or not.
Diablo III actually picked up an idea that I have. besides joining a guild / clan you can also join communities. These are basically just chat channels as well but you can be in multiple communities. These could be centered around a certain gameplay activity or outside game topic or local geography (players in your city).
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Again I'd say that social features ENABLE the use of sandbox style emergent gameplay. Without social features you might never get to the stage where you can expand the game because a) nobody will play it anymore because it's just a solo game and you can't play in a community and b) because these meta-gaming structures never developed to push for the exploration of new cool and fun ways to play.
Generally I think the argument that "ED is not like those games" has no merit. It's a genetic fallacy, you need to judge an argument or feature based on it's own merits. There is no reason to assume that ED will automatically become like EvE with the introduction of these features (slippery slope fallacy). I certainly don't see anything wrong with adding things that were fun and were good in other games to ED if it makes the game better.
No, I'm not expressing my opinion. I'm presenting a rational argument. If you miscommunicate what groups are for, the game will be worse because players are trapped in small bubbles, never meet anyone new. They will miss part of the gameplay. There is nothing wrong if you want that, but a confusing name might lead to something people did not actually want.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Almost every multiplayer game that has teams also has group chat. ED doesn't and it's an MMO.
Ok. Single Player Offline is gone. I wanted it but it's gone. Frontier see this as an online experience. OK. No real problem for me.
But I really got to ask - what do Frontier think an MMO game is? What do they think the core experience is because at the moment the only role other players play in this MMO is as obstacles, inconveniences or enemies.
We can't group up in game, be automatically in the same instance and do stuff. There's no group activities beyond going to combat zones. We can't group up in convoys and fly as one, we cannot form in game organisations like guilds in other games, with supporting social tools. There's no group occurrences. There's just shooting at each other.
A worthwhile online experience has to be social as well as adversarial. The primary form of social interaction cannot just be gimballed multi-cannons.
While as an old Elite person whose very easily pleased i'm having fun. But Frontier have my money and they have your money. Going to market without even the most basic of social features modern gamers, whose money we need to flow in, expect as standard is a mistake.
I really hope we see a huge improvement in gamma.
And yea - it might come 'later'. The game is going to get reviewed as it is on the 16th, not on what easily broken promises are made for 'later'.
I fear what we are going to see is a combination of a lot of new players who are going to look at the MMO aspect of the game, go What The Hell? and leave to spread the bad word.
Even worse we'll have a lot of these new players seeing the only form of social interaction is hostile fire and think 'well alrighty'.
But I really got to ask - what do Frontier think an MMO game is? What do they think the core experience is because at the moment the only role other players play in this MMO is as obstacles, inconveniences or enemies.
We can't group up in game, be automatically in the same instance and do stuff. There's no group activities beyond going to combat zones. We can't group up in convoys and fly as one, we cannot form in game organisations like guilds in other games, with supporting social tools. There's no group occurrences. There's just shooting at each other.
A worthwhile online experience has to be social as well as adversarial. The primary form of social interaction cannot just be gimballed multi-cannons.
While as an old Elite person whose very easily pleased i'm having fun. But Frontier have my money and they have your money. Going to market without even the most basic of social features modern gamers, whose money we need to flow in, expect as standard is a mistake.
I really hope we see a huge improvement in gamma.
And yea - it might come 'later'. The game is going to get reviewed as it is on the 16th, not on what easily broken promises are made for 'later'.
I fear what we are going to see is a combination of a lot of new players who are going to look at the MMO aspect of the game, go What The Hell? and leave to spread the bad word.
Even worse we'll have a lot of these new players seeing the only form of social interaction is hostile fire and think 'well alrighty'.
This +1000. this is what I think would be great for the game.
Shared missions , wings , group SC, Group interdiction, shared bounties in wings, tradeing between players , location of friends on map . All basic mechanics , all default requirements for a multiplayer game of this kind.
Those of you wanting the solo experience dont group or have mates and just go it alone. The rest of us want to play with our friends.
What is the point of an online game if you cant share it with your mates? Pointless and probably game shortening for most.
These features must be included but when? Some information about this would be nice from the Devs. PLEASE!!
Those of you wanting the solo experience dont group or have mates and just go it alone. The rest of us want to play with our friends.
What is the point of an online game if you cant share it with your mates? Pointless and probably game shortening for most.
These features must be included but when? Some information about this would be nice from the Devs. PLEASE!!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No-one is trapped in a group - with the group switching feature, players can decide on a session by session basis which of the three online modes to play in.
The "private group" name what Frontier call them - it's fairly clear from the use of "private" that the group is not "public", i.e. the private group is restricted access.
As to missing gameplay - possibly and possibly not. To miss something would imply that you would have enjoyed it - not all open-online play will fall into that category.
That is a good question. The "story" aspect of what the motivation for player groups is I think trying to change the political landscape. Instead of killing the big bad dragon-god-alien invader like in other games you would want to expand the territory and influence of for example the imperium. So you'd work together with other players doing all sorts of missions centered around a specific system to "flip it" to your side. I believe this is what FD has in mind as the main long term motivator. This normally wouldn't involve PVP but rather a competition of "who can flip the most systems through missions.
What you would first want and need is to pick a faction and then somehow coordinate with other players on how to go about "bringing glory to the emperor". So a guild chat would actually be much better for this than a faction chat because there might be too many players working on too many different fronts. Then you need a decision structure, usually you have a guild leader and a few founding members deciding what the target is together with the members. After all there is a competition for members so you can't afford to .... off good players by being dictatorial.
Ideally you'd want coop missions that automatically scale to however many of your guild / wing are online currently and are willing to play coop right now. Currently we only have single player missions, which is of course not really that interesting if a group works towards a common goal but each by themselves.
I don't think that commercial interests will be a main driver for guilds really because you can make money alone just as well. If you can make more money in a guild that would rightfully annoy people because it forces you to be in one. But maybe mutual protection convoys work well but 2 or 3 players might be more than enough for that.
While I'm against the kind of spammy global chat seen in MMOs (like say WoW), I don't think it would be a problem in E.D because it's instances (aka bubbles aka islands) are MUCH smaller (supposedly up to 32 players, but I usually only see 1-3 players).
So the largest "global chat" that would make sense in E.D. would be a "local chat" with everyone that happens to be in your instance/bubble/island. Think of it as CB Radio used by truck drivers in the real world. It'd be real handy to say "hey Cmdrs, I'm being attacked by pirates, please help!", and know that only people near you (and able to help due to being in the same instance) would get the message. It makes sense from a 'game lore' perspective, from a technology perspective, and would add to immersion rather than taking away from it.
If you add someone to your "ignore" list, then match-making will try to avoid adding them to your instance in the future (as it currently does).
Maybe you could also have a "non-enemy local chat", so that your message isn't seen by ships attacking you. Would be especially useful in wars where you have to choose a side.
Perhaps there could also be a way to opt-out of "local chat", for those intent on playing a multiplayer game without speaking to others.
So the largest "global chat" that would make sense in E.D. would be a "local chat" with everyone that happens to be in your instance/bubble/island. Think of it as CB Radio used by truck drivers in the real world. It'd be real handy to say "hey Cmdrs, I'm being attacked by pirates, please help!", and know that only people near you (and able to help due to being in the same instance) would get the message. It makes sense from a 'game lore' perspective, from a technology perspective, and would add to immersion rather than taking away from it.
If you add someone to your "ignore" list, then match-making will try to avoid adding them to your instance in the future (as it currently does).
Maybe you could also have a "non-enemy local chat", so that your message isn't seen by ships attacking you. Would be especially useful in wars where you have to choose a side.
Perhaps there could also be a way to opt-out of "local chat", for those intent on playing a multiplayer game without speaking to others.
Last edited:
I agree with Druid... Now its an online direction game, these should be included as std and those wanting a more private affair, simply don't add friends or join say station chat channels etc
I spent first year playing like that on SWG and was never bothered or felt my solo choice of play was compromised
Calling for help against pirates is a good example of how a simply chat could help make friends or simply feel players feel heroic by simply defending a fellow commander in the elite federation of pilots!
Local "instance" chat would certainly be the simplest implementation. It would be good if for example you are at a resource extraction site that the local chat expands enough (maybe 1 light second) so that all players there hear it. If you have 20 players in one place, and 20 players in another, there is nothing keeping one player from flying over there and joining your instance seamlessly. Of course that is a rather contrived example and we don't really know how well the instancing will work. I expect it to be really very rare that there are more than 32 players around a station or resource extraction site.
What would be interesting is how you would guide another player to your position? Imagine after your distress call someone answers "Sure I'll help you buddy!" but how does he find you? Do you invite him to your group? Can you send coordinates with a message? Can you select a player by clicking on the name of the commander in the chat?
Is there a way to see someone on your radar when they are in your "party" so you can fly towards them?
These questions show how IMPORTANT it would have been to test these things early and not late. It's easy to get it wrong and it needs to be tested a rather long time.
This would be a Great feature a flashing RED SOS Dash UI with optional Computer voice (turn both on/off in settings) then using star map to find the Ship in distress would add an amazing feel and pilot comrade feature to the game!
Well that would be even better of course lol. But even without a "special implementation" it's a great example of emergent gameplay, how the game will be better and more fun just by the addition of a simple chat.
I'm am fairly sure it would NOT work well: If a player isn't already in your instance, the chances of him/her joining your instance (rather than one of many others at the same location) is fairly low when you have 100,000+ players (and that's just for Beta). That's why I said it would only make sense for local chat to be with other people in your instance.
OTOH, maybe Frontier could add a feature where you clicked on a player's name, and your ship tried to "locate" where they were transmitting from (to use an in-game explanation familiar to any sci-fi fan). If the game found they were in a suitable instance (which you would be allowed to join) then you would see their location & the server would reserve space in their instance for you (for a limited time, say 10 minutes). If you went to that player's location within the allotted time, the server would put you in their instance (assuming it still existed). That would be awesome.
I guess you would then have two chat options, one for your instance (aka "local") and one for further-away. The further-away one would have to exclude players that were in other instances that overlapped your instance (so you would not hear from other players in a different instance at the same location, as that would break immersion).
There are lots of "edge cases" to be considered, and needs rules to prevent mis-use, but nothing that can't be solved. e.g. Once you have successfully located someone, but failed to reach them in time, you would not be allowed to locate them again for some time period. e.g. Maybe the time limit could be based upon distance, so the closer you get, the more time you are allowed, thus someone who Locates but does not actually fly towards them would get a much shorter time than someone who does.
But when Frontier have not even implement Local (instance) chat, these kind of discussions are probably pointless. First we need to convince them that a per-instance chat would make sense.
Last edited:
- Status