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

[Druid]

Look, we have private groups, and solo play for those people who are so worried about what guild's or clans do to a game. These features should be added, just because you had bad experiences in the past with them, or other games had, does not make them a bad feature. EVE has great clan/guild functionality, Star Citizen will have it too. Why? Because it is a persistent online universe, where even in the news/letters, developer presentaitons, DDFS etc the players are encouraged to work together. Yet we do not have the tools to make a squad and be informed as to where our members are, share bounties, loot, hunt as a team. etc

Gamma is out now, and I'm really really getting concerned about this.

Exactly..

 

[Chazzie]

Look, we have private groups, and solo play for those people who are so worried about what guild's or clans do to a game. These features should be added, just because you had bad experiences in the past with them, or other games had, does not make them a bad feature. EVE has great clan/guild functionality, Star Citizen will have it too. Why? Because it is a persistent online universe, where even in the news/letters, developer presentaitons, DDFS etc the players are encouraged to work together. Yet we do not have the tools to make a squad and be informed as to where our members are, share bounties, loot, hunt as a team. etc

Gamma is out now, and I'm really really getting concerned about this.

I'm not against comms - at all! just guilds, sector control and forcing groups for missions that's it.
I don't think you need to worry about the rest of it, I'm sure it's being worked on.

 

[Cosmo]

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

+1 we need social tools!

 

[Dejay]

I'm not against comms - at all! just guilds, sector control and forcing groups for missions that's it.

That is a valid concern. Like I posted earlier I think that depends on your long term gameplay goals. In WoW etc it's about gathering epics to boost your character and the only way to obtain these items is raiding. But guilds in and of themselves do not need to lead to that. So it ultimately depends on different gameplay mechanics, e.g. what will players do all day?

Ideally I would like a narrative driven gameplay where you can play generated missions with others or not, free of your choosing.

As long as grouped gameplay doesn't have a large advantage in getting elite rating or faction ranking. But even without guilds grouping could be balanced in a way that "forces" you to play together. So that also isn't related to guilds.

In the meantime guilds / communities / wings would generate gameplay elements simply because groups of players can make stuff up to do. This doesn't harm lone wolves, they can make up their own gameplay independently. System control, if it is even feasible, wouldn't be a big thing for me. You can just avoid system X. And it would be more interesting to stumble upon a system controlled by a clan instead if there is just nothing. I only ever see guilds adding to the quality of the experience of the lone wolf, even if they are not in a guild.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Again it does not matter what authority X says. Make an argument that has merit in and of itself like "guilds are bad because...".

Best of luck getting Frontier to change their minds then - they are Authority X in this instance and referring to their stated game design is hardly an appeal to authority - they are indubitably the authority with respect to the direction of the game.

 

[Dejay]

Best of luck getting Frontier to change their minds then - they are Authority X in this instance and referring to their stated game design is hardly an appeal to authority - they are indubitably the authority with respect to the direction of the game.

Again, you are trying to use an "appeal to authority" fallacy to undermine this discussion. Just repeating it over and over again doesn't help. The point stands, the game needs more social features to be successful.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Again, you are trying to use an "appeal to authority" fallacy to undermine this discussion. Just repeating it over and over again doesn't help. The point stands, the game needs more social features to be successful.

The fallacy relating to an appeal to authority would occur when the claim as to the identity of the authority in question is false - that is not the case in this instance - the entity with authority regarding this game is Frontier - can you really gainsay that?

Regarding the opinion that "the game needs more social features to be successful" - other opinions vary, of course. Frontier have told us many times that they are making the game that they want to play. If they wanted to add the kind of social features that you seek, I am sure that they would. The fact that we are now at Gamma release without any indication that they are going to add them might be quite telling.

 

[tagos]

The fallacy relating to an appeal to authority would occur when the claim as to the identity of the authority in question is false - that is not the case in this instance - the entity with authority regarding this game is Frontier - can you really gainsay that?

Regarding the opinion that "the game needs more social features to be successful" - other opinions vary, of course. Frontier have told us many times that they are making the game that they want to play. If they wanted to add the kind of social features that you seek, I am sure that they would. The fact that we are now at Gamma release without any indication that they are going to add them might be quite telling.

It's telling me they are severely misjudging the situation. And not for the first time.

 

[Dejay]

The fallacy relating to an appeal to authority would occur when the claim as to the identity of the authority in question is false - that is not the case in this instance - the entity with authority regarding this game is Frontier - can you really gainsay that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

That FD hasn't yet implement, or said something contrary about a specific feature X isn't part of the discussion about "Why no feature X". It is not disputed that the feature isn't in the game yet. We can't know what exactly their plans are (part of the reason for this thread is to kindly elicit a response from the devs). The only relevant is what are the pro/cons of feature X.

Read the subject title: "DEVS: Why no social features like...?". You are answering "because there aren't / because I think they don't want them". That is not an answer and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Stormhawk]

So much logical fallacy arguing against this idea.

I just thought I'd put my voice behind support for at the very least spontaneously-formable squads/parties/fleets (whatever you want to call them) complete with IFF marking, at least. And if Frontier is really dead-set against that sort of thing, I would be seriously surprised.

I'm also disappointed it hasn't been implemented properly yet at this point, but hoping they have plans for it during Gamma so we can start TESTING its functionality before release.

 

[Smugallo]

I find it frustrating that I need to come to the forums to communicate with lie minded pilots. I want the open play experience, I don't want to join a group. I also want the ability to speak to pilots in game NOT one to one messages.

 

[Balmung]

This is an "appeal to authority". You could use this fallacious argument to stop any discussion about the game. Please respect the right of others to speak without demanding they stop just because "DB is boss". In any case, a good boss listens to ideas, feedback and criticism.

A good Boss also listen not too much to the Crowd, but all MMO Developers in the last 5+ Years does and I didn't want to see a other Game that get ruined because of that.

The Point is that even when the Devs say "No" the most Players can't accept it and didn't stop crying so long until they get it.

I promise you our influence here is very very limited. If you want to discuss things your opinion is welcome but if you respond to the argument of other people, please argue about the merit of those arguments and not just that your or DB's opinion is different. It's not about "sides" but about pro/cons in rational arguments.

Don't get me wrong, I have only Problem with the Argument "Player want it" or "I want it" (or even "I don't want/need it"), that is selfish and the most time such Users only think on there Profit and not what it does make with the Game. But I didn't mean that someone does it here, I only want that the Users notice it, that this is no good Argument.

I self have write here some Ideas for a possible Chat/Message System that match good into the ED World (but no response at it) and write Pro/Cons at your first Post.

 

[CeskySkilla]

A good Boss also listen not too much to the Crowd, but all MMO Developers in the last 5+ Years does and I didn't want to see a other Game that get ruined because of that.

The Point is that even when the Devs say "No" the most Players can't accept it and didn't stop crying so long until they get it.


Don't get me wrong, I have only Problem with the Argument "Player want it" or "I want it" (or even "I don't want/need it"), that is selfish and the most time such Users only think on there Profit and not what it does make with the Game. But I didn't mean that someone does it here, I only want that the Users notice it, that this is no good Argument.

I self have write here some Ideas for a possible Chat/Message System that match good into the ED World (but no response at it) and write Pro/Cons at your first Post.

Do you have any evidence that FD does not want this feature because it would ruin the game?

 

[Herik]

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 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)

Of course I don't agree with all you've said; FD will supply (some) of that. I'm just not interested in those things....

 

[Dreiden Kisada]

I just love all the people saying that any kind of cross system chat will ruin exploration or other content, as if Jabber, forums, or The Internet don't exist.

 

[Balmung]

Do you have any evidence that FD does not want this feature because it would ruin the game?

I didn't write here anything of that sort here.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=61001&p=1054102&viewfull=1#post1054102

 

[Robert Maynard]

Read the subject title: "DEVS: Why no social features like...?". You are answering "because there aren't / because I think they don't want them". That is not an answer and irrelevant to the discussion.

What other answer is there? Yes, such features are possible - they are in other games - it must then be the case that Frontier have decided not to implement them (yet, potentially).

 

[gravityStar]

+1 we need social tools!

Ditto. I'm starting to feel lonely out there in space. I'd like some kind of chat channels (local, system) at the very least.

 

[Marc Alexander]

It's all very well saying that, but that won't apply to people that are new to the game, they will be expecting basic multiplayer functionality. Why would you purchase a multiplayer game for a singular experience.

Yes, I suppose I should have been clearer. I meant that the emphasis is on one commander in his or her ship, making his or her way around the galaxy by various means. Of course there should be multiplayer functionality, as I previously alluded to. But the core ED experience is singular, I would suggest.

 

[vonFelty]

If we are getting an MMO and not an offline version... Can we at least have an MMO that is done right?

Starting off randomly 150 light years from your friends does not help the situation.

Its almost if they wanted us to play alone, but be online so they can make sure we aren't copying the game.