The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[M00ka]

Yeah, if it all ever only revolved around this set of features, I don't think we'd have had all these long debates in the first place. Instead, basically as soon as the word "guild" is dropped on these (and other) forums, "station ownership" is mentioned in the same or the following sentence.

So here is my ad hoc proposal for a guild feature that might work in a way that is yields no more influence over the game and other players as the current status quo, while still satisfying the call for guild management tools and some sense of guild recognition:

• 2 or more players can form a guild (may actually be called differently in an actual implementation).
• A player can only ever be in a single guild (much easier to implement and deal with, both for FD and the players, than a multi-guild system).
• A guild must choose a unique name and a short-hand tag (no more than 4 letters). The tag is shown in front of any member's name (e.g. "SPQR CMDR Gaius Iulius Caesar"), the full guild name only in the details in the contact list (e.g. "Senatus Populusque Romanus").
• Players can enable and disable the display of guild tags globally.
• A guild has a single, global text and voice channel that only members can access. (This is an extension of the wings comms mechanic.)
• A guild has a single leader, who may appoint officers who also have the right to invite or kick members. The leader can pass on leadership to any member at any time. Leadership conveys no benefits other than invite/kick rights and the right to appoint (or demote) officers. (No custom ranks, no multi-leader system, no voting system etc., keep the technical implementation as simple as possible.)
• Fellow guild members are shown in a distinct colour on the scanner, and shown on the galaxy map.(This is again an extension of the wings mechanic.)

I'd say if it would be no more than that, I would have no objections to that, because the same thing indeed basically already exists, just with out-of-game tools (forums, Teamspeak etc.), so these are all just convenience and quality-of-life features.

.
Repped !
.
Well thought out, will have zero impact on everyone else, will let those who want guilds to say "Yay I am in a Guild". Would like to give you an extra rep for knowing what SPQR stood for in Latin but alas I can't lol

 

[Robert Maynard]

So it's bullying if Mobius kicks players for not following the rules of his 'guild'?

Not if the rules of the Private Group are made available to every player who chooses to join and if the player in question demonstrably broke the rules.

 

[Mephane]

There have been many zero day accounts today, most of which have had no activity but, guess what, vote on this poll.

ETA - another 10 accounts as I typed the above

We can see the effects already in the poll results. Let's wait and see how long it takes until this poll here is considered as "proof the majority wants guild-owned stations".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, if it all ever only revolved around this set of features, I don't think we'd have had all these long debates in the first place. Instead, basically as soon as the word "guild" is dropped on these (and other) forums, "station ownership" is mentioned in the same or the following sentence.

So here is my ad hoc proposal for a guild feature that might work in a way that is yields no more influence over the game and other players as the current status quo, while still satisfying the call for guild management tools and some sense of guild recognition:

• 2 or more players can form a guild (may actually be called differently in an actual implementation).
• A player can only ever be in a single guild (much easier to implement and deal with, both for FD and the players, than a multi-guild system).
• A guild must choose a unique name and a short-hand tag (no more than 4 letters). The tag is shown in front of any member's name (e.g. "SPQR CMDR Gaius Iulius Caesar"), the full guild name only in the details in the contact list (e.g. "Senatus Populusque Romanus").
• Players can enable and disable the display of guild tags globally.
• A guild has a single, global text and voice channel that only members can access. (This is an extension of the wings comms mechanic.)
• A guild has a single leader, who may appoint officers who also have the right to invite or kick members. The leader can pass on leadership to any member at any time. Leadership conveys no benefits other than invite/kick rights and the right to appoint (or demote) officers. (No custom ranks, no multi-leader system, no voting system etc., keep the technical implementation as simple as possible.)
• Fellow guild members are shown in a distinct colour on the scanner, and shown on the galaxy map.(This is again an extension of the wings mechanic.)

I'd say if it would be no more than that, I would have no objections to that, because the same thing indeed basically already exists, just with out-of-game tools (forums, Teamspeak etc.), so these are all just convenience and quality-of-life features.

I may not like it, but I don't have any objections to this.

Unfortunately, from a guild perspective, this is the least favourite option.

 

[Roybe]

Not if the rules of the Private Group are made available to every player who chooses to join and if the player in question demonstrably broke the rules.

Same thing with guilds...unless they are poorly run..which then means they will be short lived anyway. You join a guild to follow the rules...you break the rules, you get kicked out.

 

[Crazy Jedi]

There have been many zero day accounts today, most of which have had no activity but, guess what, vote on this poll.

ETA - another 10 accounts as I typed the above

Well that makes the whole exercise bunk unfortunately....

 

[Scudmungus]

Why guild wantin 1 leader?

Be future - no council, board, collective - many ways to structure tings.

Why mons wantin to get aal feudal?

1 boss, 1 guild - gud way to grow 1 BOLD ego

 

[Roybe]

We can see the effects already in the poll results. Let's wait and see how long it takes until this poll here is considered as "proof the majority wants guild-owned stations".

Won't ever happen...it's already been discounted because it is 'not a true representation of the player base'.

- - - Updated - - -

Why guild wantin 1 leader?

Be future - no council, board, collective - many ways to structure tings.

Why mons wantin to get aal feudal?

1 boss, 1 guild - gud way to grow 1 BOLD ego

Most guilds I play in have a council of players running the group...it is less about power and more about longevity.

If it does become about power the guild inevitably fails.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

There have been many zero day accounts today, most of which have had no activity but, guess what, vote on this poll.

ETA - another 10 accounts as I typed the above

Sounds like they are behaving like a guild and trying to bully the rest of us ...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Same thing with guilds...unless they are poorly run..which then means they will be short lived anyway. You join a guild to follow the rules...you break the rules, you get kicked out.

What would be in the rules of a Guild that could result in a player kicked?

 

[Cody]

There have been many zero day accounts today, most of which have had no activity but, guess what, vote on this poll.

ETA - another 10 accounts as I typed the above

Not exactly surprising, that! Ho-hum!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There have been many zero day accounts today, most of which have had no activity but, guess what, vote on this poll.

ETA - another 10 accounts as I typed the above

Typical Guild behaviour.

I kid, I kid! Honestly. *scampers off thin ice*

 

[Talarin]

Well that makes the whole exercise bunk unfortunately....

Not really. This isn't a popularity contest - and you've no way of knowing whether the zero day accounts are just legit ED players who never signed up on the forums or not. (The mods may be able to see recurring IP addresses on registration, which suggests sockpuppetry - but what's the point?).

FD will make their decision based on the strength of the argument and whether it fits into whatever else they have planned. There could be a million more votes but it's not likely to change any outcomes (and never did the first time).

 

[Tarman]

I'd like to propose the forum open a Zombie Corral subsection, for those who feel the need to flog the really dead ones just that one more time. Nothing in this thread is new on this topic except for the specific arrangement of words. Horsemeat indeed.

Yes, I read it all. Scud and Ziggy's posts are worth reading on their own merits most of the time, quite apart from the threads in which they appear. Like Sean Connery in Highlander II, you're watching them work to watch them work, not because the film is any good.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Well that makes the whole exercise bunk unfortunately....

It was bunk well before that happened.

 

[Whiterose]

So it's bullying if Mobius kicks players for not following the rules of his 'guild'?

Perhaps bullying is too strong a term. I am merely pointing out that "Its your game and you play how you want to" translates into "Its your game and you play how we want you to if you join a guild". Which is fine if you want to be heavily regulated like a medical device, but if you want freedom then no. I know this will be countered with "you dont have to join if you dont want to" which again is fine, but, and a big but, when guilds start owning stations and refusing entry because you are not a member of the gang then that is a line crossed as far as I am concerned.

 

[Mephane]

Won't ever happen...it's already been discounted because it is 'not a true representation of the player base'.

Oh I have no illusions that this may still be used very liberally and both ways - "the old poll is biased, does not represent the majority" and "see, the most recent polls shows a clear call for guild ownership over stations" - not just where this deception is employed deliberately, there are probably also enough people who don't recognize the fallacy behind calling one poll biased and unrepresentative and referring to another poll as proof they were right all along.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

There could be a million more votes but it's not likely to change any outcomes (and never did the first time).

It didn't need to the first time since the majority wanted no guilds, and we already had no guilds.

 

[Mephane]

What would be in the rules of a Guild that could result in a player kicked?

Hate speech, racism, sexism, classism, attacking fellow guild members, being a spy for another guild, not upholding guild charter §5 that defines what colour all members must paint their ship in? There are many reasons why a guild may wish to part with a member and the member could very well proof unresponsive when politely asked to go.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

FD will make their decision based on the strength of the argument and whether it fits into whatever else they have planned. There could be a million more votes but it's not likely to change any outcomes (and never did the first time).

Indeed, as it shouldn't.

If we're being honest, all of us know Jack. Who posts here and is a nice guy by the way. My vote is just as nonsense as a zero-day accounter, in the sense that Frontier should not take my say so into account. And of course they won't. I trust FD more than me in deciding the path which the game should take. And if it happens that I don't like it, tough.