The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Well, personally I would limit it to a LIMITED Outpost as a refuelling post.

And if they exist and OWN a station then they are a minor faction. Minor factions have reputation, minor factions can LOOSE reputation and loose ownership of stations.…

Big guild/group/cooperation/fancy-name-for-guild/tribe would have the option to take away the station form small guild/group… Small group has no way to counter it. Small group works hard to build station, big group easily takes it away.

So here's what I propose. Dont let ANYONE own anything.…

You are basically against "guild owned stations". I agree with you on that aspect.

Let them players post MISSIONS on a bulletin board with payment from their own stash.

Good idea, but it shouldn't be restricted to "guilds". There is no reason why such missions shouldn't come form a lone player. Those missions shouldn't be "Kill CMDR XY"

…
Now, this COULD extend to a system if they work their asses off but they dont OWN the system and every other player, NPC and other will do other jobs that continously oppose their influence.

So let people WORK for their factions "rent" of a system and station. Also, this ownership and griefing AND reputation work would only be possible in open play.
…
…

Opposing groups will want to blockade the system and kill everybody who might work for that player minor faction - it's easier than to do missions that oppose that minor faction. And you want game content to be accessible only to guilds and only in open. I don't like that.

How about that:
- players can build their own outpost/space station
- that station is only in their own private instance
- if it's an outpost owned by a guild then only guild members can go into that instance, but they only can go into that instance.
- the "guild" instance with the outpost doesn't have a player limit so "guilds" with lots of members get a place where they all can meet at once (if they accept horrible lags and really bad ping).
- they can't own the system where the outpost is located because everybody else will always be in an other instance
- "friends" could get a permission to enter that instance, this would allow friends to visit the outpost and it would allow consensual PvP battles around the outpost

There could be other additions like the option to make a player created outpost public if there is no other station in the system. The outpost would then be a regular NPC owned outpost (without player created name or faction). It would require some thought how to prevent player groups form abusing that option.

 

[Ghostickles]

True, but we know some of the devs do scan the forums and this is our best chance to express opinions, some of which they may take on board for consideration.

Mostly its just bickering and semantics, I bet they /pass.

 

[jabokai]

Mostly its just bickering and semantics, I bet they /pass.

I disagree, it's mostly squabbling and nitpicking.

 

[jprelph]

I agree entirely if the type of organization is limited to the typical MMO "Guild". However player factions, as I've outlined in a previous post, would increase the choice and diversity of missions to non-faction players. Rival factions competing for the control of a station would result in a huge increase of missions. The system could also be implemented so that it was in the interest of players in a faction to protect and encourage their non-faction supporters and confine their aggressive interactions to rival faction members.

You are always going to be limited by the mission structures available - so it'll still be a case of FD adding those. It's not like someone could currently script in a massive multi-threaded mission across 1000ly because the functionality doesn't seem to be there, so while I can see it adding more missions I can't really see the diversity changing.

The concern with guilds/corporations (etc.) is from what people see in other games and I still don't see how this changes with any suggestion put forward so far. As soon as there are player groups with power and influence at a certain level it becomes necessary to either be in them to get certain things done, access certain areas or content, or to play in a certain way. I don't see how anything less than that will satisfy the people asking for guilds/corporations (in a traditional sense), yet at the same time giving them what they want seems liable to upset just as many players (who just may be less vocal). Your suggestion seems pretty neutral in gameplay but I don't see how it's that much different from PowerPlay in terms of mechanic, and it feels like that could be achieved by just an expansion to what can be done under PP.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Here's another "the poll does not matter really"-approach.
Yes, FD will or will not do something but their plan on the game WILL be based on the public requests (or at least if they want revenues as a business...)

FDEV will see the poll, sure, and then - if they're in any way sensible and reasonable - will ask questions;

1) How does the number of voters compare with the average number of active players of the game?

2) Is that voter count in any way representative of the player base?

3) "Hey moderators, can you give us information on things like number of new or rarely-active forum accounts that voted in this poll"

4) From (3) can it be deduced there was forum brigading? Vote stuffing? Duplicate IP addresses (sock puppetry)?

5) Do the proposed and voted for suggestions go against the spirit of "Elite" ?

6) Do the proposed and voted for suggestions go against the ideas FDEV have for the game THEY want to play?

And from that range of questions will come to their own conclusions. Anything else on this forum is basically sometimes noise, sometimes signal.

Personally, I can only make assumptions on a couple of those questions, I can pretty much guess the answer accurately on some of the others, and I can pretty much predict what FDEV's conclusions will be - but I'll keep those thoughts to myself. The test of my own results will come with time.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

How interesting what "strategies" we can see in a thread like this.
There's a poll with currently 1184 votes on it and a visible tendency.
The guild-question is hot as always which clearly shows the two emotions it can be dealt with: the NEED and the DENIAL.

The need-side is easy: expressing a need is a clear and straight forward thing.
…

I think it's more of a "want" and less a "need". The problem with "want" or "need" is that without a concrete proposal who something should be everybody can project their own ideas and fantasies how it would be into that "want"/"need".

There will always be somebody who reads about a concept and the first thing they think about is "what could go wrong". A sub-group of those will go on to think "how could I use the thing that goes wrong to my advantage".

The a (large?) part of the "want" group then ignores any concerns about things that could go wrong by saying that those things could be sorted out by the developer.

Example: I want that every human on this world has 1 billion US dollars/Euros/Pound Sterling.

 

[Stigbob]

Here's another "the poll does not matter really"-approach.
Yes, FD will or will not do something but their plan on the game WILL be based on the public requests (or at least if they want revenues as a business...)

If FD wanted to go down the mass appeal route, they'd have produced some godawful "AAA" rubbish via a major publisher and would probably have tanked already after a quick cash in. Elite was groundbreaking for it's time and spawned an entire genre, the last thing they should do is start including industry standard lowest common denominator features.

 

[Armour]

It's fun seeing the same 50(?) people arguing back and forth in this thread. However, the person that holds the majority of shares in the company, and ultimately holds the veto on what will or won't be included in the game, has made pretty unequivocal statements against your typical guild structures. Also, the game is doing pretty well commercially, so dire warnings on that front probably won't hold much weight with the aforementioned person.

(It seems like this thread is just grinding out the same arguments and counter-arguments for no meaningful benefit. Does that make this and similar threadnoughts the forum version of Powerplay? And people say they dislike it...)

 

[Scudmungus]

Still waitin fah data, quantative an qualative, dat dissproves or hell, challenges the following statements:

-- guild impact on self esteem an enjoyment of game

-- guild influence can be positive an dis influence can be negative

-- guild influence on self esteem an enjoymeny of game dependin on mons an minds


http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2009/3450/00/07-08-05.pdf

Provide data that be showin gud stuff from bringin 'guild' to Elite. Data showin that wi stand to gain more dan wi stand to lose.

Until den, enjoy yah opnion, welcome to it - countin fah nottin

 

[Stigbob]

It's fun seeing the same 50(?) people arguing back and forth in this thread. However, the person that holds the majority of shares in the company, and ultimately holds the veto on what will or won't be included in the game, has made pretty unequivocal statements against your typical guild structures. Also, the game is doing pretty well commercially, so dire warnings on that front probably won't hold much weight with the aforementioned person.

(It seems like this thread is just grinding out the same arguments and counter-arguments for no meaningful benefit. Does that make this and similar threadnoughts the forum version of Powerplay? And people say they dislike it...)

Shh, I'm grinding for a Braben faction dashboard bobblehead.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Shh, I'm grinding for a Braben faction dashboard bobblehead.

You only get one of them when you reach double Elite forum ranking - I know because T.j told me so....

 

[Snarfbuckle]

You are basically against "guild owned stations". I agree with you on that aspect.

Yes, more like take and hold what is already there.

But it would be nice, at least from an exploration angle to be able to set up independent outposts that while belonging to a player faction does not give them any direct legitimacy over it.

Player could "own" systems if they managed to put these far outside civilized space where other factions simply do not have any reach. But even those stations would require people to mine and gather fuel for it to work.

Good idea, but it shouldn't be restricted to "guilds". There is no reason why such missions shouldn't come form a lone player. Those missions shouldn't be "Kill CMDR XY"

That was what I meant. A player faction controlling a station would be able to further it's factions goal by creating missions to further their goals. If they would like to take over another station they would have to create a mission targeting that faction or transport goods affecting them in a negative way (like transporting something illegal like weapons to promote insurgency).

Before they can do that though they need to be able to create independent missions in stations they do NOT own in order to further their agenda to one day ownign a station and for that they would need good rep with a faction before they can post their own missions.

missions would be available for any player to pick up.

Opposing groups will want to blockade the system and kill everybody who might work for that player minor faction - it's easier than to do missions that oppose that minor faction. And you want game content to be accessible only to guilds and only in open. I don't like that.

Well, the main reason is that I dont want faction PvP to be like powerplay, where we can undermine another faction by solo play and completely avoid possible PvP and co-operative multiplayer.

How about that:
- players can build their own outpost/space station
- that station is only in their own private instance
- if it's an outpost owned by a guild then only guild members can go into that instance, but they only can go into that instance.
- the "guild" instance with the outpost doesn't have a player limit so "guilds" with lots of members get a place where they all can meet at once (if they accept horrible lags and really bad ping).
- they can't own the system where the outpost is located because everybody else will always be in an other instance
- "friends" could get a permission to enter that instance, this would allow friends to visit the outpost and it would allow consensual PvP battles around the outpost

There could be other additions like the option to make a player created outpost public if there is no other station in the system. The outpost would then be a regular NPC owned outpost (without player created name or faction). It would require some thought how to prevent player groups form abusing that option.

Ok, if players simply want an instance to chill out with their friends that's ok, a multiplayer "solo" zone for faction members.

Why would we really need a built station for that? Why not just add another gameplay mode - Co-Operative Faction Gameplay, an extended group play between solo and open where you only play with our friends.

 

[M00ka]

You only get one of them when you reach double Elite forum ranking - I know because T.j told me so....

.
your not wrong, I am so low I only got a Robert one - sob lol

 

[Hellhawk666]

Fair points.

You are always going to be limited by the mission structures available - so it'll still be a case of FD adding those. It's not like someone could currently script in a massive multi-threaded mission across 1000ly because the functionality doesn't seem to be there, so while I can see it adding more missions I can't really see the diversity changing.

That's correct, however what would be different is the managed purpose of missions. At the moment they appear randomly without meaning - a player faction would produce missions that were to its own members' preference - bounty hunting, trading, haulage, etc. Missions could be built using a menu driven interface that allowed some flexibility, but certainly, the possibilities would be limited by what FD provided.

I can't see massive multi-threaded missions happening either, but opening up a combination of missions, complex CGs, spawning of CZs and other such activities would produce an certain type of analogue of this. I think emergent gameplay would happen with this facility.

Your suggestion seems pretty neutral in gameplay but I don't see how it's that much different from PowerPlay in terms of mechanic, and it feels like that could be achieved by just an expansion to what can be done under PP.

I'd be more than happy to see an expansion to PP that provided similar gameplay opportunities. The suggestion I offered is only one of many possibilities to illustrate the point that this whole issue does not have to be seen as black-and-white. There are many avenues for compromise that would benefit the game as a whole and satisfy the majority of players. One big issue I see at the moment is that the game AI has exclusive control of content generation, such as it is. Opening this to player factions would at least give more real control over some aspects.

 

[lysan]

I like the idea, however there are many questions popping up related to this.

Owning a station is a big in-devour, only very large guilds can take on a massive task like that.

How do you defend a station and moreover how do you capture it?
FPS must be in the game before this could ever happen. I really don't see how this could be done without this being in place first.

It a whole new game play and to flesh out an entire station would be a very large task. As I said I like the idea, the road map to get there is just not so easy.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Even if I had posted the poll just on FD forum and not made posts on reddit, it would still be self selection. But what self selection does is make the margins of error bigger. The way you would like it done is not possible.

And all the anti-guild people were telling me that a poll had been done earlier and I was wasting my time. So now that this poll comes out different (a year later and a lot more people) now it's useless because of non-randomized selection.

I'll ask you again. How would you have done it different?

[My Bold]

You make a fair point. I'll make a new guild poll, it will also be non-randomized. I only want people who don't like guilds to vote. That would also, by your logic, be fair, wouldn't it? No, it wouldn't.

A poll is not a poll unless it contains a randomized sample, if it doesn't not then it is at best a baying mob and at worst an outright fraud.

According to video game lore, there is a silent majority of players that never use the forums. Or only read posts. This was used against this poll earlier, but now that the results have changed, now people are incredulous. Those players saw the thread on here or the threads on reddit and signed up to vote.

Yes indeed. The silent majority, the ones not on reddit.

This poll, if we are to be charitable, is worthless.

If we're going to be honest this entire debacle is a good reason to not have player-owned game assets like stations or systems. Player groups can easily be organized to action on some issues, and if, for example, FDev did something a sufficently large number of players didn't like (powerplay for example) players could simply decide to put their stations "on strike", forbidding entry to other people playing.

Given how close to the chest FDev tend to play there is no chance of this happening. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It seems like this thread is just grinding out the same arguments and counter-arguments for no meaningful benefit.

Oh come on! I have wasted valuable time in this thread and threads like these. I would not call such effective procrastinating no meaningful benefit.

I only need a couple of hours more before becoming Elite Procrastinator.

Hmmm ... good name for a boat.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

But it would be nice, at least from an exploration angle to be able to set up independent outposts that while belonging to a player faction does not give them any direct legitimacy over it.

It would be cool to have player created outposts and I can imagine outposts that start from a few spaceships that are connected to each other and then grow into something bigger creating unique looking stations that have a history. My problem is that I can't imagine a way to add outposts into the game that can't be exploited or used as an excuse to gank.

That was what I meant. A player faction controlling a station would be able to further it's factions goal by creating missions to further their goals. …

Well, the main reason is that I dont want faction PvP to be like powerplay, where we can undermine another faction by solo play and completely avoid possible PvP and co-operative multiplayer.

The downside is that a large guild can easily beat a small guild in that scenario - doesn't matter if its in Solo or Open play. Think about the frustration members of a small guild will suffer if they build a station only to loose it to a big guild that did nothing to build that station and just used missions an PvP to get control of that station.
And why shouldn't guilds that don't want to participate in PvP not be able to build a station? And coop multiplayer is possible in Solo and Group Modes. In Solo it won't be very direct coop, but the members in solo could participate in the creation of the station.

Ok, if players simply want an instance to chill out with their friends that's ok, a multiplayer "solo" zone for faction members.
…

Because it's cool to have a place to chill out with friends. And with friends I included "enemy" guilds and meet ups for PvP.

My main problem with player created stations is, that it's to easy for a large group of players (organized in a guild or by TS, forum or what ever) to work against a smaller group.

 

[Stigbob]

You only get one of them when you reach double Elite forum ranking - I know because T.j told me so....

Holy Zarquon I'll never reach double elite, I can't even land and repair my signature. There's an infraction on my head and a guild squadron of sock-puppets on radar.

 

[Whiterose]

Hmmm ... good name for a boat.

? you are going to name your boat "Hmmm"