Well, yes.. DB said himself that meeting other players in open play, for the most part, will be a rare experience.
Last edited:
DEVS: Why no social features like chat channels, guilds / corps and parties?
- Thread starter Dejay
- Start date
- Status
Well, yes.. DB said himself that meeting other players in open play, for the most part, will be a rare experience.
Elite places players in different systems for multiplayer reasons.
Don't like that? Meet up someplace else - it really is as simple as that.
So, was this addressed in gamma or not?
How exactly does that work? You're making excuses for a lack of MMO features - "for multiplayer reasons"? Is that a joke? There's literally no multiplayer features included in this game except that it's online.
Group play mode with up to 32 players, group chat in game up to 6, and you can text or voice talk with any CMDR you run across. Seems very social to me. I would like a little more tbh but I believe it will come in time. For now I'm good.
The current situation is pretty bad...
System full of people (starting area), try contacting with 10 commanders and i got no response... This would be fixed with a 'local chat' but we don't even have that.
Result, I went to solo because it's not worth the rubber banding, lags and everything else.
System full of people (starting area), try contacting with 10 commanders and i got no response... This would be fixed with a 'local chat' but we don't even have that.
Result, I went to solo because it's not worth the rubber banding, lags and everything else.
What do you mean, "What other answer is there?" There hasn't been an answer. You're stance is "Frontier decided to not add social tools because frontier decided to not add social tools"
I've added stuff to the top post. Suggestions welcome. StayFrosty I hope you don't mind me quoting you.
Here is a great quote on why we need chats to create a multiplayer experience:
Commonly encountered objections:
About the intended style, taken from the preorder details page:
"Whether you want to trade for profit between systems, take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances, free-for-all group battles and team raids to bring down planetary economies, even tip the balance of power in the galaxy (for your own advantage of course), or simply explore the wonders of the galaxy (and who knows what you’ll find out there...) is up to you."
Here is a great quote on why we need chats to create a multiplayer experience:
Commonly encountered objections:
Since it's optional you can simply click "disable chat" and be done with it. I think this sentiment against chat is very common but it's not a valid argument against the feature.
Because a) it's clumsy to use b) it breaks immersion with alt-tab and c) it splits the community in those using this or that type of external tool. Even worse there could be several alternatives.
This is such a fundamental "meta" feature that realism doesn't matter. Besides faster than light communication already exists in the game, e.g. information about crimes or call for reinforcement is FTL communication.
Because it will negatively impact how new players receive the game and hurt long term customer base if these features aren't added soon.
Some people can't voice chat because they have no headset or other people in their house would get annoyed (e.g. night). Others don't like voice chat because it's harder to roleplay, less immersion, it's "louder" or because they are shy.
The "private group / shard" feature is actually badly named and implies that it's meant for grouping players together. Instead if splits players apart from the rest of the player base.
The current status on the DDF for alliances / wings is severely lacking. It's not clear if it's a temporary grouping and everyone can invite anyone, and the players can be kicked by voting. It's not a substitute for guilds with a structure. In any case we would like to know more.
There is room for different play styles, and there is no reason why guilds would lead to the detriment of lone wolf players. At least as long as group gameplay doesn't have unbalanced advantages for reaching game goals but that doesn't automatically follow.
About the intended style, taken from the preorder details page:
"Whether you want to trade for profit between systems, take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances, free-for-all group battles and team raids to bring down planetary economies, even tip the balance of power in the galaxy (for your own advantage of course), or simply explore the wonders of the galaxy (and who knows what you’ll find out there...) is up to you."
Last edited:
You know what else isn't realistic? Flying through hyperspace in a space ship in the first place while dogfighting with laser weapons
You know what else isn't realistic? Flying through hyperspace in a space ship in the first place while dogfighting with laser weapons
Well if anyone would have caught you with a smartphone writing on a forum in the middle ages you would have been burned as a witch! They'd been like "That's not realistic! BURN HIM!"
But then again , in Elite
angeous fiction there is FTL internet: the Grid. And I would like to hear official FD statement about it being canon (and why they allowed it in book(s) if it was not)Problem is, the "hardcore fanbois" simple extrapolate world of Elite(1894) and it's sequels , while at least some parts we get from ED do not stick with that linearly extrapolated "knowledge". But still we hear same "reasons". If I would get silver dollar for each time someone claimed "this is not MMO", despite what it writes in front page.
So, if Grid is canon, then there are helluva lot of inconsistencies in data availability departament, be it communication capabilities or say, actual real time market data availability (spaceBloomberg.com anybody?)
Last edited:
But then again , in Elite
Oh cool in what book is the Grid mentioned?
I have a solution for all of this: FACTIONS.
Allow us to create our own in-game parties with statistics, grouping features and unique chats (as it faction-only chats like team chat in other MMOs). This will give us a purpose, competition and the social aspect.
Allow creation of missions by your own factions for other factions to complete, gaining respect from your faction (assign a respect or points value to each mission based on difficulty, etc.).
Clearly, the NPCs are divided among factions and warring between them for control. It only makes sense the player should be able to do the same.
Last edited:
Spot on. This would add a much needed long-term appeal and motivation for playing with others.
Last edited:
You mean player created factions? That sounds great! But what would the gameplay effect be? Taking over a system / owning a station? I bet a lot of people would love that. Otherwise factions would just be another name for guilds / clan / corps. SC allows you to pick a name for the type of organisation which I like. Faction embodies the idea of owning stations or representing a population though. You could build or take over stations by doing specific missions just like eriani missions will help certain factions.
The idea of creating missions for others is great. The most basic stuff would be to find a player to escort your trading run etc. The missions would have to be transmitted to nearby systems / stations though because if you only put it up in the current station, it's highly unlikely anyone will ever stumble upon it in time. More complex missions would make the game a lot of fun.
It sounds great but this is just day dreaming. The current system does not allow for such things as player owned structures. First of all they would have to be destructible to have any sense, second of all what stops me from starting a private group with my faction, going to your system and blowing it out of the water without you having a chance to defend it?
I also want people to do meaningful stuff in the universe but the limitations of islands to 32 players (coupled with the terrible idea of solo and private being the same universe) just blocks so many of this right in the design discussion. There is a reason why gameplay is so limited around this (and why the phrase "you and the universe" comes so often) and it is the same reason why EVE does not have twitch based combat. Current technology does not allow for both.
That said there is some social functionality that should be in there, player driven missions are a good example because once again you have to balance them with the current limitations. For example bounty hunter missions don't make much sense due to the instancing ED relies on, however "fetch me a 3A shield generator" would be a good example of things that can be accomplished with the current limitations in mind (it would also need code changes, I don't know if at this point in development it is feasible to make ship upgrades something you can carry in your cargo hold).
Bounty hunting in groups and escorting other players is just the most basic functionality that should already been there at the start of beta. It is just a corner stone of anything that wants to call itself an MMO. I want to kill NPCs or other players with my RL friends and share the bounty. I want one of us to have a Lakon 9 without being a sitting duck for interdictions and then share the profits. I feel all of this is very basic and just crazy to even talk about release without these features in it and there are no reason the current game design does not allow for it.
So there you have 3 examples of social interaction ranging from the "should be in there already" and "it will never be in there". To be honest if what you want is empire building ED will never be it, maybe Star Citizen but I have many doubts they will be able to deliver what they promise. They will still be stuck with limitations regarding islands but this will not be so bad if they go for a single persistent universe instead of the approach Frontier took with what could be described a "persistent multiverse" where your actions on "solo universe" affect the outcomes in the "open universe" and no one can even attempt to stop your actions.
I was thinking of something far simpler and rather cosmetic. Nothing PVP or so. For example: Once 10 players of a guild / wing get very high reputation with the current faction that holds a station, they get "takeover" missions just like those eridiani missions. Deliver cargo, do missions to destabilize authority vessels, kill officials, deliver propaganda... nothing "special". You don't destroy any stations you just have a generated storyline to take it over. After you take it over in the simplest case all you have is a name change in the system map. Maybe something like cheaper repair or slightly better profit when selling / buying upgrades etc. And you never get scanned or attacked by authority vessels whatever you do. But the simple case (generate missions, change faction name) would be rather easy to do with the current system. It would simply be a more or less cosmetic goal that groups of players can pursue.
OPEN play =) I think meeting people in your own group in a private play is a rare experience too lol.
I know it's probably a pipe dream, but since the devs said that there is no way you will be able to destroy stations I really hope to see some sort of station "takeover" when they release the FPS expansion. For example, maybe the Empire is invading a system and you failed to hold them back, so you, your groups, and the rest of the station authorities try to fight them off from inside the station - and if you fail again, the Empire will then enslave the local population and turn it into Empire territory. Maybe players can take over a low population/security station and charge people/NPC's that are outside of your group/faction taxes and terrifs.
- Status