The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

again, this is a problem with misscommunication with what people consider guild content to be.... I do not consider comms to be guild content, even if comms is a part of a guild.

maybe we need a poll ( ) , with more options - where you can choose more than 1 option (so check yes for X and Y but no for W and Z)

I did see those in the guild crowd try and clarify what we want several times. And pretty much everytime got shouted down and told we wanted improved comms so we claim systems and shoot anyone who went there. I don't see that as a miscommunication so much as a crowd of people deciding what they think others want and then yelling at them for wanting the thing they claim we want. Even though we several times have said how to deal with the problems they see.

 

[M00ka]

What do you think guild content is?

Every game I have played with guilds had the following core things
A list of members.
A list of who was online
A guild chat channel
A guild message of the day.

Optional things I have seen are
A guild bank
A guild ship
Guild territory
Guild leveling with benefits ?
Guild tabards
officers chat channel
Guild housing

To me private groups are guilds..They basically do the same thing. But at the moment they are pretty useless as you can't see who is online unless you enter everybody into your friends list. Which can be very daunting in some groups. You can't talk with members of your group as a group only as individuals. So that group thing is pretty useless. I am told I can play in group mode with my friends. Problem is you can't actually find them in game. You have to use some third party tool. Which makes groups pretty useless.

.
Shall we look at what you are asking for:
A list of members. The Friends List
A list of who was online The Friends List
A guild chat channel The current in game VIOP or whatever it is
A guild message of the day. Other groups are managing to get their messages on GALNET, seems to work

Optional things I have seen are
A guild bank Would require credit transfers between players, something FD are adamant will not happen
A guild ship Would be in a similar vein as credit transfers, could not image FD allowing multiple ''owners" of an asset
Guild territory Can't see a problem it works for the current groups
Guild leveling with benefits Define benefits, you mean guild members get advantages that non guild members get?
Guild tabards No idea what tabards are, but if you mean guild name suffixes, no problem with that
officers chat channel What, don't the troops get a channel, what about separate channels for each win, and a unique channel for the Guild Commander?
Guild housing Do you mean stations or do FD have to buy some tents (yes frivolous I know but couldn't help myself lol)

Except for these things we are asking for are kind of needed to make the existing groups actually useful. Cause if I log in in group mode but have no way of telling if my friends are online or talk to them it kind of defeats having a group mode doesn't it? And don't tell me to just use a 3rd party tool. The game should be use able in every mode with out using a third party tool.

.
Don't tell me to change the game I play then!

They already do with teamspeak. Can't you also chat with CMDRs on your friends list, no matter where they are?

Can Vlad and Antilles please get their stories straight, they are supposed to be on the same side here. We have already been told numerous times that TS is unacceptable because there could be deaf and mute people and it is really hard to use if you are using an Oculus Rift (see Mike, I called it the right name this time )

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

We can voice Comm friends anywhere in the game in the core game without the need for teamspeak. So how is that "cheating"

 

[BurnyBurns]

The easiest way to (probably) alleviate the concerns of those who do not want Guilds to be added to the game (this late in the development) would be to request that, in addition to Guilds, a new game mode is added that Guilds and all their features are restricted to, thereby ensuring that all players who currently enjoy the Open mode (but don't want Guilds) can continue to play in Open mode unaffected by Guilds....

So how about Robert's suggestion of a new Open-Guild mode then? So current Open is unaffected but all you guildies would be in a new Open mode with all the other guilds - would that work for you?

This is exclusion of people who'd like to play in a group and therefore an absolute no-go where I'm concerned.

Player groups should be available in open and treated equally to solo players. Full stop. The individual choice to ignore player groups is fine. Nobody should make a choice for all players, whether solo-, Pgroup-player or else. This concrete suggestion would no better than the current implementation (or rather: the utter lack thereof) for that reason.


If the ability to ingore such groups is so tremendously important to some people, those should be given the option to blend out their existence. It should not be the people desiring to play and organize in groups, who have to retreat to a walled in mode. Neither should the others have to leave open.

As for such options. Taking my previous post as a hypothetic baseline for Pgroup and station control implementation:

• Pgroups should be aligned to some in game/-lore power. The same goes for players who'd like to control stations (one player Pgroup as workaround?). This would allow to let them blend in with the background simulation.
• Game controlled jurisdiction. I'll repeat this here, as this is the key point to let Pgroups and solo players coexist, imo. Players or Pgroups should, imo, always have to answer to game controlled rules and not be given the ability to block stations, areas etc..
• If Pgroup players were identifyable by their tags, ship scanners should receive the option to not scan such tags (as well as masking any guild decals by not displaying them).
  • Players should have the option to see the faction of a Pgroup, rather than the specific Pgroup.
  • E.g.: Rather than the Pgroup (or player) name and their decals/tags on a station, players should be able to see the station as belonging to the in-lore faction.
• ...

This is specific to my imaginary Pgroup and station control implementation. In such an implementation however, the only note open-"single"-players would have to take of Pgroups and player controlled station, was by their actions. Everything else would appear to be background simulation for them.

Any concrete implementation is up to Frontier. As is realizing that in any multi player title with a similarily strong role play or persistent world portion as in ED, people potentially want to play and organize in groups.


This is the kind of constructive discussion about the topic I would be really happy to see. Not:

"Fence them in in their own mode and be done with it! Because I think Pgroup and station control doesn't fit into Elite's legacy and don't want to have Pgroups influence MY game."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Odd I have never seen player owned content as required for a guild. And I saw no evidence that any in the guild crowd saw it as required. I saw it discussed as an idea that many find intriguing. But I do not see finding something intriguing and potentially fun as demanding.

Have you read the first option in this poll?

edit: or is it the "demanding" you're tripping over?

 

[M00ka]

We can voice Comm friends anywhere in the game in the core game without the need for teamspeak. So how is that "cheating"

.
Then what the heck has the last 1,522 posts been about, you know, all those posts demanding guild comms, you just admitted the one in game works fine.

Spoiler

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

We can voice Comm friends anywhere in the game in the core game without the need for teamspeak. So how is that "cheating"

christ... sorry maybe worded badly but please i was not trying to be literal! indeed the ability to voice comm anyone anywhere in the game IS a disconnect from elite lore which has been discussed in another thread and I personally would like to see fixed (so the further away you are the worse the sound quality gets till in the end you just do not connect). I apologise i you think i was calling you a cheat, it was not my intention. (ps i myself have also used thrudds and slopeys tools outside of the game on occasion I still do not think this functionality should be in the game unless the game lore explains it)

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is exclusion of people who'd like to play in a group and therefore an absolute no-go where I'm concerned.

Player groups should be available in open and treated equally to solo players. Full stop. The individual choice to ignore player groups is fine. Nobody should make a choice for all players, whether solo-, Pgroup-player or else. This is no better than the current implementation (or rather: the utter lack thereof).


If the ability to ingore such groups is so tremendously important to some people, those should be given the option to blend out their existence. It should not be the people desiring to play and organize in groups, who have to retreat to a walled in mode. Neither should the others have to leave open.

It would seem from your comment on "exclusion" that a key requirement of Guilds is then to play among as many other players as possible, whether the latter want that or not? That there are those in this thread who put forward the opinion that Guilds will have no effect on other players is no real surprise. That there are also those who have played games where the actions of some Guilds have been detrimental to their personal gaming experience is also no surprise.

Given that all players can play in any of the three modes as they choose, those who choose to play in the hypothetical fourth mode would do so - consensual participation in Guild mode.

Those who enjoy the current Guild-less Open mode (and don't want to play among Guilds) would be able to remain in that mode.

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

.
Shall we look at what you are asking for:
A list of members. The Friends List. Guild lists do not require manual entry. The friends list does.
A list of who was online The Friends List. Again friends list requires manual entry guild lists do not.
A guild chat channel The current in game VIOP or whatever it is. Only works with one CmDr at a time. Guild chat channels go to everyone in the guild. Same with the voice option
A guild message of the day. Other groups are managing to get their messages on GALNET, seems to work not the same and not reliable. And not private.

Optional things I have seen are
A guild bank Would require credit transfers between players, something FD are adamant will not happen never saw anyone request one.
A guild ship Would be in a similar vein as credit transfers, could not image FD allowing multiple ''owners" of an asset never saw anyone ask for one. Though a station I guess sort of falls in this category.
Guild territory Can't see a problem it works for the current groups
Guild leveling with benefits Define benefits, you mean guild members get advantages that non guild members get? Varies between games. Think of it like the powers benefits.
Guild tabards No idea what tabards are, but if you mean guild name suffixes, no problem with that in this game it would be a decal for a ship.
officers chat channel What, don't the troops get a channel, what about separate channels for each win, and a unique channel for the Guild Commander? Normal guild chat everyone gets. Officers get a channel to discuss direction and such for the guild
Guild housing Do you mean stations or do FD have to buy some tents (yes frivolous I know but couldn't help myself lol) it varies with games in ED it would likely be a station or planetary base.



.
Don't tell me to change the game I play then! You talk about the solo experience as being the "correct"... that is kind of what solo mode is.


Can Vlad and Antilles please get their stories straight, they are supposed to be on the same side here. We have already been told numerous times that TS is unacceptable because there could be deaf and mute people and it is really hard to use if you are using an Oculus Rift (see Mike, I called it the right name this time )

I consider the needs of others in my thinking. Teamspeak works for some people. But it is far from universal and requires popping out of the game to change anything. Either pop off you rift or look to another monitor or alt tab...none of these options is ideal. I would rather have most things built in.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would rather have most things built in.

Has any consideration been given to the additional server bandwidth required to provide voice comms to large groups of players in instances other than your own?

I don't expect that the increased bandwidth would be either inconsequential or free.

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

Has any consideration been given to the additional server bandwidth required to provide voice comms to large groups of players in instances other than your own?

I don't expect that the increased bandwidth would be either inconsequential or free.

And teamspeak doesn't do this already? I have seen a lot of peer to peer voice options...Skype for example. I don't necessarily think we need voice. Text would probably be the baseline and the place to start.

 

[Ghostickles]

It would seem from your comment on "exclusion" that a key requirement of Guilds is then to play among as many other players as possible, whether the latter want that or not? That there are those in this thread who put forward the opinion that Guilds will have no effect on other players is no real surprise. That there are also those who have played games where the actions of some Guilds have been detrimental to their personal gaming experience is also no surprise.

Given that all players can play in any of the three modes as they choose, those who choose to play in the hypothetical fourth mode would do so - consensual participation in Guild mode.

Those who enjoy the current Guild-less Open mode (and don't want to play among Guilds) would be able to remain in that mode.

Disagree.
I thought Solo Groups and Open was enough.
Solo by yourself.
Groups for selective play.
Open for everyone.
This is a key requirement of Open.
Heck, you could even have two guild make a private group for guild vs guilds, but you don't want to exclude, or shadow ban them, do you?
Plus its fracturing the playerbase. Never a good move in any game, ever.

 

[M00ka]

And teamspeak doesn't do this already? I have seen a lot of peer to peer voice options...Skype for example. I don't necessarily think we need voice. Text would probably be the baseline and the place to start.

.
But what happens if you have a guild member who can't read goodly (or is blind - we have already had deaf and mute, might as well go for the trifecta).
.
Sorry to be so flippant but I am seeing so many backflips, contradictions and rebuttals that it is doing my head in lol

 

[Stigbob]

Where did I say "guilds just try to control people" or "only one allowed", now it is late but I don't remember saying that, feel free to post the link.

Anyone can "play their way" within what the game provides, if you missed it look in the solo vs open vs group thread, page 1 posts 1,2 & 3 might help, 3 is quite long but its worth it.

Guess what!, the game I bought didn't have guilds in it, and said it wouldn't, I have posted links to DBOBE saying it many times now. So why should I sit by and watch whilst people try to change the game I researched before buying it, into what they want it to be because they didn't do any research?

Think the game needs to change because MMO spells "guild" to you? I think not, I didn't make a mistake, I have been happy with my purchase for 13 months, if you are not you need to look closer to home!

Put it on max size & watch his face, you will see why I am not concerned.

I hadn't noticed that its pretty obvious he either hate's the idea or being made to answer the question, Mrs Stigbob gets that look when I say "lets invite my brothers over and get a curry".

The nose touching/mouth guard hand gesture can be interpreted as "discussing something unpleasant", "lying" or "thinks questioner is lying" according to internet experts based on research conducted in the 60's that's largely discredited and ignored now.

Or "has an itchy nose" if you are of a less gullible/pragmatic/realist mind set.

 

[specialsymbol]

I hate guilds. They're not better than a mob.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Disagree.
I thought Solo Groups and Open was enough.
Solo by yourself.
Groups for selective play.
Open for everyone.
This is a key requirement of Open.
Heck, you could even have two guild make a private group for guild vs guilds, but you don't want to exclude, or shadow ban them, do you?
Plus its fracturing the playerbase. Never a good move in any game, ever.

Given the polarised opinions on the hypothetical introduction of Guilds into the game, would you not expect that, if Guilds were to be implemented with no additional mode, those who do not want to play among Guilds would simply move to Private Group(s) to avoid them? Does this not also fracture the playerbase?

 

[FuzzySpider]

Yes you will get some jerks who will be abusive. You get people like that now. That won't change. You can take steps to mitigate it. But with that attitude FD should never make a game because some people might be jerks...that is a terrible way to run a company. Find ways to deal with them instead of being so paralyzed by fear of bad behavior you do nothing.

Nobody is suggesting "do nothing". Just don't hand control of essential game elements (docking at stations!) over to players!

As I said, it will rip me out of my immersion. I'm playing in the Universe of Elite, not the universe of some website or other or that group of people. Guilds will create pockets of very "gamey" places, which I can deal with fine (it will drive me out of open entirely but hey - open can die if you want to kill it). I don't object to you having your own guild with communications or wotnot.

But stations are an absolute no brainer for no. They're game assets. They certainly shouldn't cut into anyones solo experiences.

In the game of Elite, at no point, ever, should anyones ability to dock at a station depend on whether or not 'captain_legless_santa' has decided to allow them to.

Ever.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I hate guilds. They're not better than a mob.

Even as a none guildie I think this is hugely unfair! not all guilds are bad, it is just that I personally do not like gaming in them, even the "good" ones, but once you get a huge group together all with their own agenda it immediately gives them power over the lone wolf/small wing kind of players. I absolutely support some guilds for some games.

But i also feel there needs to be some games to cater for players like myself, and ED was sold as such a game.

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

The mods may well set up a poll if you ask nicely.

It would pretty much be a waste of time, I suspect. FD have made it abundantly clear that they do not want guilds in their game (though they have crossed previous red lines, like the one that led to CQC). And I seem to recall a very old thread where there was a poll, and No Thanks, won by a landslide.

Edit: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=8368&highlight=guilds

Yup. Over 60% said no. Go vote if you are that keen, though one vote will not change the picture.

This is what you call OLD DATA. Its no longer representative of the post-release version of ED we're (mostly) playing now.

In general, current players (not forum junkies) want more communication, and more player-generated content.
They don't seem to want Eve in ED space, they want ED in ED space.

 

[Ghostickles]

Given the polarised opinions on the hypothetical introduction of Guilds into the game, would you not expect that, if Guilds were to be implemented with no additional mode, those who do not want to play among Guilds would simply move to Private Group(s) to avoid them? Does this not also fracture the playerbase?

No, they wouldn't play in public less than they do now.