Depends how "high risk" it is to implement, as that's how FD are prioritising things rather than how an end user judges priority. DBOBE's talk in Malmo covers that quite well.
Last edited:
DEVS: Why no social features like chat channels, guilds / corps and parties?
- Thread starter Dejay
- Start date
- Status
Depends how "high risk" it is to implement, as that's how FD are prioritising things rather than how an end user judges priority. DBOBE's talk in Malmo covers that quite well.
I used the voice comm last week while talking to my son, I just thought it was cool 
Made me wanner say " Roger " after I spoke lol
Made me wanner say " Roger " after I spoke lol
I agree. It would have improved the beta testing too.
Its an offline single player game.
Why in the world would that have chat or social features?
Oh right! I guess that was only till last week...
So presumably, there was not enough time to put it in yet?
You have to admit, one week is really pretty short to write that.
They haven't even removed the "Save and Exit" buttons yet. I took a nostalgic screenshot of that, to remind me of the time when we were going to own a real game that was going to be ours to play whenever we wanted, with save games and all, instead of just temporary permission to log into their server.
Why in the world would that have chat or social features?
Oh right! I guess that was only till last week...
So presumably, there was not enough time to put it in yet?
You have to admit, one week is really pretty short to write that.
They haven't even removed the "Save and Exit" buttons yet. I took a nostalgic screenshot of that, to remind me of the time when we were going to own a real game that was going to be ours to play whenever we wanted, with save games and all, instead of just temporary permission to log into their server.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Game was never advertised as a Offline single player game, dunno where you got that idea from.
Save and exit will remain - amazing i know - its so you can...save and exit
Now back to the thread topic.
------
Guilds, corps etc imo would not suit Elite and i'm glad they will not be features added in or supported.
I'm in a gaming community so would like it from a selfish point of view but it wouldn't make much sense to Elite cannon.
Last edited:
I read that as "I'm already in a guild and I know that any other guilds would be a deterrent to my plans." You must be coming from EVE.
On a more serious note, and on topic:
Whether we are talking about almost tabletop games like Magic the Gathering, your favorite type of shooter or massive strategy games like any Paradox title, chat always remains one of the basic features for a reason. Chat is even more important for any kind of MMO simply because the scale of communication is much bigger.
Guilds/alliances/extended friends lists, or however you wish to call them are another aspect of many MMO's out there (even those that are less oriented on socialization and group content). Some kind of a way to organize people, even in small groups is a quality of life feature that I think most of the people who have had gaming MMO experience would come to expect from this type of game.
The only explanation I've read against implementing social aspects in ED is that it breaks immersion.. I can see how that'd be a problem for some people, but, following same logic, can someone explain to me how come such a minor issue is higher on the immersion breaking list then the fact that you can pop in a military confrontation, pick a side, kill a bunch of people from other side and get away with it scott free.. Hell, not even that, you can just land on the nearest "enemy" station and ask for a job from opposing faction. What kind of a soldier would serve in an army that regards well being of random mercenaries higher then own or the integrity of their cause? (I haven't actually played the game, only pre-purchased it, but from videos I saw I didn't gather any sort of punishment for interfering in an open military conflict).
In my opinion the real issue with means of communication and group organization is the way of implementation.. Is the chat going to be station only or station and local (some distance from the broadcaster), or system and local, or maybe all three plus global etc. Same goes for groups.. But discussion about pros/cons of these features are something for another thread, since not even rudimentary means of meaningful communication exist as of yet and we don't even know if they'll even be implemented before release (or ever).
I totally agree. It's not trivial to get this right. The worst example is Diablo III at initial release. Diablo II had a vivid community and chat 10 (or so) years ago but Diablo III with lots of resources managed to botch the job totally.
So first they have to get the design right, then the implementation. But they haven't even started with it!
Just to name a few of the things you can screw up: history, cursor movement, skipping words with ctrl, marking text, copy and paste, clickable links in chat for locations / missions etc, hotkey for repy to last whisper and then cycling though recipients in a way that makes sense actually. Do you see the commanders name or the account name in chat? Can you chat with your guild using external tools? (SC uses xmpp which is brilliant)
Last edited:
I could care less about a global/universal chat room. I don't even care about Elite catering to Guilds/Corps. Which in a way could be a good thing. It will help make sure Elite is more about the individual and not making you feel like you MUST be in a Guild to get anything done. In fact I do hope they focus on making sure it stays that way.
However, this game MUST allow us to form groups/squadrons with our friends. You can't be called a multiplayer game if you can't work together with someone else. A single player game that gives you a chance of a 1v1 versus another human being once in a while is not a mulitplayer game in my opinion. If I can't activate my FSD without losing track of my friend, whats the point? I mean having a wingman to protect your hauler or mining ship seems like a no-brainier.
However, this game MUST allow us to form groups/squadrons with our friends. You can't be called a multiplayer game if you can't work together with someone else. A single player game that gives you a chance of a 1v1 versus another human being once in a while is not a mulitplayer game in my opinion. If I can't activate my FSD without losing track of my friend, whats the point? I mean having a wingman to protect your hauler or mining ship seems like a no-brainier.
MWO uses a p2p system very similar to ED, is twitch based and was released 2 years ago. It allows you to form 4 man groups as well. ED isn't doing anything new or different other than modeling planetary motion and the whole galaxy. In terms of how the game actually plays, it's a different flavor of previously used technology and game mechanics. As others have stated, the game is not massively multiplayer or even slightly multiplayer if it doesn't have the ability to form squads/wings/gangs or whatever you'd like to call them and play cooperatively. The means of chatting to other players in your immediate vicinity (collectively, not 1 on 1) is also a core trait of MMO and non-MMO multiplayer games.
This whole new and different argument needs to die. There is nothing new or different about releasing a bad game. It happens all the time. A bad game is precisely what ED will be if it doesn't have these two critical multiplayer features by the time it's released.
Last edited:
I think the question of whether "lone wolf" playstyle is viable is largely depended on the long term gameplay goals in ED.
For example "grinding" faction reputation and elite ranking:
Do you even min-max? Do you want to? E.g. using the optimal tactic to boost your rep/h or rank/h and look at guides for tactics on how to shorten the total time to elite from 120 hours to about 87 hours. This kind of mindset will exist no matter what.
The question is then - can you gain more with grouping up with other players? How will ED balance this?
There you have a conundrum. You want players to work and play together because players generally love it. Do you reward it in order to encourage playing together? Usually there are also costs associated with playing together, you need to coordinate, lfg, have setup costs to meet, wait times, loo breaks etc. Unbalanced groups might easily implode when one drags down the others rank/h value. So if playing together is not viable because you just progress and grind faster solo, then you don't group. But if you do encourage it too much then well, you are forced into groups. That would suck for lone wolf players.
But I highly doubt this optimizing approach to rep / rank grind is compatible with what the "lone wolf" advocate here want in any case.
Another goal might be asserting political influence in systems:
What David Braben means in his QA about why the shared, living galaxy is absolutely necessary or else the game would be "empty" and it would suck. I'm not quite sure what this is going to be, a story / campaign consisting of missions that are released overtime, or just a background simulation.
If you do want to for example make sure that the eriani communist are left alone by the fascist federal plutocracy war machine, you are forced into a guild. You need to organize with other players to reach your goal. Alone you can't influence anything.
So here the lone wolf already lost. You won't be able to pursue this type of gameplay goal alone.
Ultimately I want missions that are complex and procedurally generated:
If you manage to create a procedurally generated narrative (dwarf fortress) then everybody will be happy. these could easily scale for groups, raids, guilds or single players.
I just don't think the inclusion of a chat channel and guild features will make any kind of difference. Other gameplay elements like "epic gear" where you need to slay bosses to get the highest equip that is only available to raids would create a pressure on lone wolfs. But that is content and a question of fundamental gameplay. Guilds themselves not. ED is different and always will be. But to not include social features is just
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but you are just wrong: MWO is not an MMO in any shape or form. What unreliable Wikipedia says backs-up my vague impression, which is that it's 12 v 12 arena combat. i.e. Basically a multiplayer FPS like Battlefield or whatever, except with huge mechs rather than puny humans, where the networking technology isn't much different from that used in Quake 3 Arena (released in 1999). That renders the rest of the argument irrelevant, so I'll only answer a few bits.
ED doesn't have any technology which hasn't been done before by someone else, but it's *combination* of technology is absolutely unique as far as MMO gaming is concerned. So unique that quite a lot of people have difficulty accepting it as an MMO (comparing to existing MMOs rather than looking at the definition an MMO), and also people often insist that Frontier need to add features from existing MMOs (such as guilds) that simply don't fit into the kind of game that David Braben is trying to create.
Sadly ED has been rushed for release before it is ready, many features only exist as basic 'placeholders', and multiplayer communication is one of them, which makes it even harder to explain to those people how ED is a different kind of MMO to any before it.
A lot of people backed ED's Kickstarter BECAUSE it offered a vision of a massively multiplayer (space) game unlike anything else.
You will see that I started a thread listing features that ED needs before release. And I have commented in other threads suggesting similar things. So I agree that ED is being released too early. This wouldn't matter, except that reviews will be released, and I very much worry they will give a bad first impression. (You can imagine them giving all sorts of praise, but then going "but you will spend half your time in SuperCruise, which can get really boring" or "but you can't easily chat & meet-up with people".)
So oddly enough I actually agree what you think needs doing to ED before release. You appear to have jumped to conclusions about what I think, based on what I said bearing a little resemblance to what other people who disagree with you said.
Last edited:
Well said and you can't stress it enough. ED is the first MMO that I know of that actually has one single unified continuous world, without separating the player based with servers/shards. Well actually EvE but it's not an action game. It's more massive and massively than any massively multiplayer game before by a factor of a billion.
That's why I backed it! (Along with being a good space sim that had a planned released 2 years sooner that Star Citizen ;D ). I was assuming it was going to be that space sim I was hungering for. A game Like EVE Online with less spreadsheets and more FUN that I could play with my friends. Not an online only single player game.
I can relate.
I would add: game with dogfights and less trying to be second (or third) job
So far only dogfight part is fulfilled ...
I didn't read all, want only answer to the first Post here.
System: no, that is too much, too far, not immersive.
And it make absolutely no Reason why a MMO should have any sort of Global Chats. It ruins the Immersion to Chat with every Player even when he is on the other Side of the Universe. And too many Players use Global Chat only to Spam, to offend other Players and other Things that ruins the Game Community for ever. I played MMOs since over 10 Years and I know very well from what I talk...
What a MMO should have is a clever Message System and no 08/15 (bog-standard) Chat System like the last 10+ Years in MMO Genres.
My Ideas for ED:
1. A Mail System for longer Text/Voice recorded Messages (Global). The Time they need to her Destination depend on the Distance between the Players.
2. A Messenger/Voice Chat for short Distance Communication (System). Like above the Distance of the Players set the Delay at the Communicaton, but here only very short.
3. A Bulletin Board (Forum like) on the Stations (synced with all bigger Stations from one Fraction) where other Players could leave Text Messages for some little Credits (to avoid too much Spam).
4. A Local Station Chat with Channels for Trader, Explorer, Hunters etc.
That are old Ideas that I had already 10 Years ago in similar Form. This would match very good into the ED Game World itself and is immersive in that Way, a simple 08/15 Chat System didn't.
Station: all fine with that, possible with a short Range around the Station (in the same you must be for req. Docking for example).
System: no, that is too much, too far, not immersive.
Hell no! This would be global Chat Channels > Players use it as General Global Chat and ruin it / Also Gold Sellers are very Happy to have such Channels.
And it make absolutely no Reason why a MMO should have any sort of Global Chats. It ruins the Immersion to Chat with every Player even when he is on the other Side of the Universe. And too many Players use Global Chat only to Spam, to offend other Players and other Things that ruins the Game Community for ever. I played MMOs since over 10 Years and I know very well from what I talk...
What a MMO should have is a clever Message System and no 08/15 (bog-standard) Chat System like the last 10+ Years in MMO Genres.
My Ideas for ED:
1. A Mail System for longer Text/Voice recorded Messages (Global). The Time they need to her Destination depend on the Distance between the Players.
2. A Messenger/Voice Chat for short Distance Communication (System). Like above the Distance of the Players set the Delay at the Communicaton, but here only very short.
3. A Bulletin Board (Forum like) on the Stations (synced with all bigger Stations from one Fraction) where other Players could leave Text Messages for some little Credits (to avoid too much Spam).
4. A Local Station Chat with Channels for Trader, Explorer, Hunters etc.
That are old Ideas that I had already 10 Years ago in similar Form. This would match very good into the ED Game World itself and is immersive in that Way, a simple 08/15 Chat System didn't.
Could be sorted into my Ideas easily.
Agree, should we have now with 3.9?
Not a bad Idea, like it. They are completely optional so no one must do this Sort of Missions when the didn't want it.
+1
Whats behind that?
Hm... risky... that need a very good System or we have Problems with Gold Sellers that ruin the complete Ingame Trading System...
Good Point, +1
Last edited:
They can call the game whatever they like. I can call poop gold. But in the end what the game can do is what defines it. You can't have a successful mmo without some sort of social features. And the main problem here as you said, is this game is being advertised as the greatest multiplayer space game ever. So johnny public seeing this ad will buy the game yay. multplayer space game. Then they will not be able to have any kind of multiplayer experience in the game and that's it. If that is what you wanted or knew you were getting, no type of multiplayer experience (when the box says so, so I don't see how you could not expect it) then you will have no issues.
That's why I say that this game and the developers are having trouble deciding what they want, and that is why in the end offline mode was scrapped, they need to target one demographic and cater to it and stop trying to please everyone, simply because you can't. Either you please the X3 space adventure crowd or past elite crowd or people who like single player space exploration or you please the multiplayer mmo people who want something different to eve online. If you try both, both are mediocre and the whole thing fails.
That's why I say that this game and the developers are having trouble deciding what they want, and that is why in the end offline mode was scrapped, they need to target one demographic and cater to it and stop trying to please everyone, simply because you can't. Either you please the X3 space adventure crowd or past elite crowd or people who like single player space exploration or you please the multiplayer mmo people who want something different to eve online. If you try both, both are mediocre and the whole thing fails.
- Status