The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Robert Maynard]

FD could start by adding 'some' support and then grow the features.
Outright refusal to change and add multiplayer features to a multiplayer game is simply hiding one's head in the sand for fear that the boogie man (Eve) will come and eat our lunches.

Examples of reluctance to include Guild features which facilitate large groups of players in the game from DBOBE himself: here and also in his interview with Arstechnica at E3:

More standardized online gaming conventions like clans or formalized player organizations aren’t in the cards, at least not for the foreseeable future.

I'm asking you personally.

Do you think that unaffiliated players will be tolerated, even without owned stations, by Guilds that have chosen to adopt a particular system as their own? The idea that Guilds would be happy out in the weeds on the frontier of human occupied space does not seem to be a realistic one, to me, and I fully expect that they will want to occupy well travelled space to allow them to interact with as many other players as possible.

 

[Theodrid]

More Multiplayer features is SCARY!

Woof

If all you can come up with regards to those who do not want guild features added is that they are 'scared' then you are doing yourself and your cause no favours - if you can find the time read more of this thread the areas of concern are varied and numerous.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I read this thread and the others as much as I can, and most of what I read is how much people hate Eve and are afraid of Eve.

Is that a fact?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly - the question is "how to". Actually it would be useful to collect the feaures mentioned or requested in the go (including the other mega-thread) and make another multi-choice poll to see in what rates people would or would not like to see these features. It's a huge job actually and I wish I had the time to do that but without this I don't see how else we could move forward from this current round and round state of arguments...

Plus the fact that polls on these forum can be skewed by participants that don't actually own the game - there's no need to own the game to create a forum account.

 

[M00ka]

I don't think anyone has said they are scared of Eve, what the general consensus is that we are worried about mob mentality and egotistical Guild leaders and their members.

 

[Talarin]

Which wouldn't *at all* be taken and used as the reason to expand and constantly demand more and more features, right?

That's a lazy argument though. Don't give any basic features because it will lead to rampant guildwars and griefing, catching all and sundry in their wake and leading to the death of Elite Dangerous as we know it. Right.

Where do you draw the line with that kind of attitude? Don't introduce new combat specialist ships? Don't introduce points of interest on stations? Don't introduce dynamism into the background sim engine?

I understand the concern that some people feel that to give a feature set that people have been discussing since at least beta phase could be construed as 'giving in' and would just lead to more demands from the same set of people - but refusing to make improvements to the game which by any measure should have been features on release on the grounds of the slippery slope argument is a position that I really hope FD wouldn't take.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm still only talking about the expanded social tools element - not player ownership, formalised player factions or any of that malarky.

 

[Jericho]

I simply don't have the energy in life to argue against the Flat Earth Society.

Yes, there are many reasons why a game that has been overwhelmed by Guilds would become unfun.

But there are many reasons why a game that supported some Guilds would be more fun.

Flat refusal to allow some content into the game for Guild support is beyond believable to me. I spent weeks reading and being aggravated by the last thread with the same naysayers building the same roadblocks....

This game will either grow to support multiplayer groups or it will die on the vine.

I will now respectfully ignore this thread.....

Cheers,
CMDR -Jericho- [FREDM]

 

[M00ka]

That's a lazy argument though. Don't give any basic features because it will lead to rampant guildwars and griefing, catching all and sundry in their wake and leading to the death of Elite Dangerous as we know it. Right.

Where do you draw the line with that kind of attitude? Don't introduce new combat specialist ships? Don't introduce points of interest on stations? Don't introduce dynamism into the background sim engine?

I understand the concern that some people feel that to give a feature set that people have been discussing since at least beta phase could be construed as 'giving in' and would just lead to more demands from the same set of people - but refusing to make improvements to the game which by any measure should have been features on release on the grounds of the slippery slope argument is a position that I really hope FD wouldn't take.

.
Damn I promised myself I wouldn't get involved any more (I am a jerk afterall).
.
Talarin, okay, FD gives you your wish, you get the comms setup you have asked for, and you can now create Guilds. What do you intend to do now that you have all of that (remember, you only got the communications everyone has been asking, no station, no new banking system, no guild owned ships etc.) What will your guild do, how will it benefit not only yourself but all players?

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I don't think anyone has said they are scared of Eve, what the general consensus is that we are worried about mob mentality and egotistical Guild leaders and their members.

Mainly this - but there are some significant changes from EVE that exists and CAN be added.

-Elite do not have 0.0 space apart from Anarchy systems so LAW still apply - even player factions must follow local laws when inhabiting said system
-Sure, players can try and change the system to Anarchy but im sure som major faction might have issues there.
-No gates, no gatecamps so we CAN ignore them and "their" little special snowflake system.

 

[andyraptor]

"a game of the freedom of the individual"

and long may it reign .............

 

[medwyn]

If you read the thread, you should find a few anecdotal examples of ways in which non-Guild members have had their gaming experience detrimentally affected by Guilds.

I don't really understand why people bother playing in a MULTIplayer game if they are afraid of being affected.
There are single player games where one is not affected by players -ED had the chance to be single player (to keep the "spirit of Elite", lol) but apparently it's multiplayer.
Secularizing a whole 400 billion wide galaxy in an OPEN mode in the name of "don't touch me" when there are solo and group modes as well is beyond my understanding. That's actually a very arrogant way to try to determine (affect) others' gameplay and limit down the multiplayer possibilities just because they want to play "as they please as a solo pilot".
Multiplayer is a compromise, it has special dynamics because it's interactive. Increasing the level of interaction is what makes the multiplayer gameplay rich. Accommodating to certain environments is an essential, key element when one plays TOGETHER with others.

Let me reverse it:
- you affect my gameplay when I am refused to dock at an outpost because there's no available landing pad
- you affect my gameplay when you undock and I have to wait for you to cross the letterbox to access my landing pad
- you affect my gameplay when you shoot at me because I pledged to a power of my choice
- you affect my gameplay when we are in the same instance of supercruise because your presence is causing me stuttering
- you affect my gameplay when I have to look at your name tagged on a planet I have just discovered (I don't care about who was there first)

...and so on.
So I would kindly ask everyone who is afraid of being affected in a MULTIPLAYER game to accept the fact that it's an essential effect of being together in the same space (or go and play solitaire).

- - - Updated - - -

I simply don't have the energy in life to argue against the Flat Earth Society.

Yes, there are many reasons why a game that has been overwhelmed by Guilds would become unfun.

But there are many reasons why a game that supported some Guilds would be more fun.

Flat refusal to allow some content into the game for Guild support is beyond believable to me. I spent weeks reading and being aggravated by the last thread with the same naysayers building the same roadblocks....

This game will either grow to support multiplayer groups or it will die on the vine.

I will now respectfully ignore this thread.....

Cheers,
CMDR -Jericho- [FREDM]

Would rep but used my shot earlier.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I simply don't have the energy in life to argue against the Flat Earth Society.

Yes, there are many reasons why a game that has been overwhelmed by Guilds would become unfun.

But there are many reasons why a game that supported some Guilds would be more fun.

Flat refusal to allow some content into the game for Guild support is beyond believable to me. I spent weeks reading and being aggravated by the last thread with the same naysayers building the same roadblocks....

This game will either grow to support multiplayer groups or it will die on the vine.

I will now respectfully ignore this thread.....

Cheers,
CMDR -Jericho- [FREDM]

Good call.

Brushing the opposing arguments aside without any support to do so, and instead using sweeping generalisations is detrimental to the discussion.

 

[FuzzySpider]

That's a lazy argument though. Don't give any basic features because it will lead to rampant guildwars and griefing, catching all and sundry in their wake and leading to the death of Elite Dangerous as we know it. Right.

Where do you draw the line with that kind of attitude? Don't introduce new combat specialist ships? Don't introduce points of interest on stations? Don't introduce dynamism into the background sim engine?

I understand the concern that some people feel that to give a feature set that people have been discussing since at least beta phase could be construed as 'giving in' and would just lead to more demands from the same set of people - but refusing to make improvements to the game which by any measure should have been features on release on the grounds of the slippery slope argument is a position that I really hope FD wouldn't take.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm still only talking about the expanded social tools element - not player ownership, formalised player factions or any of that malarky.

It's not a slippery slope argument.

Not so long ago a handful of... individuals... claimed ownership of GLS at Leesti. They rammed anyone who didn't ask their "permission" to dock. It shows human nature, particularly internet human nature, and the tendency of some 'broken' people to do weird things to others for their own weird sense of fulfillment. The proposal to give players control over docking permissions basically also puts station security in their hands - it'll be a griefers paradise.

Guilds - merely a bad idea.

Player owned stations - it's up there with hydrogen filled hot air balloons and giving Charles Manson a lift home in the scale of truly catastrophic ideas.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So I would kindly ask everyone who is afraid of being affected in a MULTIPLAYER game to accept the fact that it's an essential effect of being together in the same space (or go and play solitaire).

I don't expect that resistance to the proposed implementation of Guild features stems from "fear" of being affected - if players were so reluctant to encounter other players then they'd probably be in Solo and would be totally unaffected by Guilds.

I expect that resistance probably comes from those players who really quite enjoy playing in Open (I'm one of these) who do not want to be affected by players who have the benefit of the financial muscle that a Guild bank can provide, i.e. players who are not restricted by their own bank balance, or by players who don't want to be shot at by territorial player security simply for entering a system that some Guild has chosen to appropriate.

 

[Crazy Jedi]

FD could start by adding 'some' support and then grow the features.
Outright refusal to change and add multiplayer features to a multiplayer game is simply hiding one's head in the sand for fear that the boogie man (Eve) will come and eat our lunches.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm asking you personally.

I read this thread and the others as much as I can, and most of what I read is how much people hate Eve and are afraid of Eve. Well, this isn't Eve and will never become Eve, so if that can't be the reason what're the other reasons other than people are simply being stubborn?

Adding multiplayer features? The game already has multiplayer features (admittedly some of them require improvement) but yes I agree things like comms could stand some reworking/improvement.

I don't believe that people hate Eve. The general consensus of those that have been filed in the - Anti-guild - side of the discussion (sometimes literally an argument) is that the game was never marketed as a guild based game thus should not be transformed in to a guild based game because many of those of us that bought the game, bought it precisely because it did not include guilds.
Introducing guilds to ED would totally alter the whole dynamic and mechanic of the game ruining it for those players who do not want to be part of a guild. The reasons why have been listed repeatedly throughout the thread.
It is not people being stubborn. It is just people wishing to enjoy the game that they bought and not end up owning a game they never wanted.

 

[Talarin]

Talarin, okay, FD gives you your wish, you get the comms setup you have asked for, and you can now create Guilds. What do you intend to do now that you have all of that (remember, you only got the communications everyone has been asking, no station, no new banking system, no guild owned ships etc.) What will your guild do, how will it benefit not only yourself but all players?

I, and the other players in this grouping we've been referring to as Guilds, will now be able to message each other all at once inside a single chat instance - instead of messaging each other individually as we do now. We'll be able to have three, four, eight way conversations as we see fit.

If we're an activity orientated organisation (which my lot aren't, we just socialise) then we can access a static message letting everyone know what the plan for the day, week or whatever is.

While we're out and about, we might save a player from a mean old pirate who we invite to join our Guild. He likes the idea and accepts and so we invite him in. He now has immediate access to the Guild members page, and can see who's online, where they are etc. without having to manually add each player to his friends list (which they have to individually accept). Try doing that for a larger group (say over 30 members) and imagine how much player-time has just been consumed on nothing more than maintenance of friends lists.

He can now chat to everyone as a group, without having to individually message each person on his friends list (some of whom may not be in the group, as the friends list doesn't allow categorisation).

 

[Theodrid]

So I would kindly ask everyone who is afraid of being affected in a MULTIPLAYER game to accept the fact that it's an essential effect of being together in the same space (or go and play solitaire).

What exactly is it about the ego of some people that even when they are repeatedly told it is not about 'fear' that they continue to toss the term around? Is it so you feel better to imagine that people are scared of you and your play style/preferences? Is it meant as an insult simply because someone does not hold your viewpoint?

Maybe you like Marmite - I don't, that does not equate to me being scared of Marmite.

 

[jabokai]

I simply don't have the energy in life to argue against the Flat Earth Society.

But, but, but you are the Flat Earth Society! You refuse to see that multiplayer doesn't have to mean guilds, you refuse to open your mind to the idea that it could be done differently (like Powerplay and the evolution of that with players affecting the rise of minor factions to actual Powers), you're caught up in the MMO paradigm. Geez, them flat earthers eh.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

From the few responses giving constructive feedback on why people want guilds, so far i'm seeing a sliding scale.

1) It starts with improved comms and group play. This I think most people could accept (am i right?), as any development in this area is of benefit for anyone who doesn't play solo. The same functionality could be used for regular groups of players/friends and for powerplay.

2) The next step up is where we are talking about cosmetic stuff mainly. People wanting clan decals for example. So far FD have no released many special decals, but it could be part of their future business plan. However, this could be possible to allow player submitted decals, but there would be overhead for FD. They would need to confirm quality of submissions and naturally censor them. And if it wasn't open for any player to submit a decal, then i think you could expect serious pushback from the playerbase.

3) Area control - and of course, this is one of the things that those who oppose clans are most opposed to. If this were implemented outside the framework of powers or factions, not only would it add yet another layer of complexity to the existing system (which many people already feel is half-baked) it turns the clan system into a "this is ours" system. I think it might be easier for people to swallow if the option would simply allow for clans to swear to a minor faction (and it seems like this is in line with recent FD announcements, if not so tightly linked). It wouldn't stop other groups or solo players swearing to that minor faction and it could be made so that the whole thing becomes more dynamic with some dev effort.

4) Now we get really controvertial and where many players will balk, which is the things that might be considered special treatment of clans. This could include clan owned stations (if it wasn't also possible for non-clans to do the same, evne if it was a matter of scale), clan discounts, special guild pages, guild storage, etc. Personally, i couldn't bring myself to agree with these as they then differentiate clan players too much from non-clan players. If such things are to be implemented, they have to be available (where possible) to all players regardless of their preferred play mode or whether they want to be in a group or lone wolves.

There is also the matter of lore that keeps coming up. While there are plenty of players who make their group (clan) play fit with lore, you will always get those who want to call themselves Goons or whatever, and has been mentioned, seeing in Galnet a news article along the lines of "Commander xxx_SuckMyKiss_xxx of the Guild XboxersUnite2010" (and that might be a moderate example) would send many players to reread the Jolly Roger's Cookbook and decide where to send a special package

So, from what i'm seeing, there are some nice suggestions so far that would be of benefits for clans, but also of benefit to most users.

If, instead of doing what some people want, and FD focus on improving in game tools, and allowing players to get greater control over minor factions, allow them to act as a form of emergent gameplay, and as possible, tighter integration between powers and factions, it may just be that it will satisfy some of those looking for clan like features.

Those who want special treatment for clans though, with ownership, discounts, etc.... i think, no matter how many polls are run, or arguments made (good as they may be), I don't think FD will bite.

- - - Updated - - -

This game will either grow to support multiplayer groups or it will die on the vine.

If i had a dollar for every time someone posted on the forums a variation of "If FD don't make the game work i want it to work it will die"... id have erm... perhaps a thousand dollars!

 

[Talarin]

... the game was never marketed as a guild based game thus should not be transformed in to a guild based game because many of those of us that bought the game, bought it precisely because it did not include guilds.

Introducing guilds doesn't necessarily result in "Guild-based". Again, we're back to the nuance of "what is a guild", good game design and what sort of limits FD might chose to impose on this proposed entity.

You say that you bought the game precisely because it didn't have Guilds. I respectfully say "no you didn't". That was a surface detail, but the game not having Guilds meant that something you didn't like wasn't going to be there. What was that "something you didn't like"?

If I could ask for one thing in the thread going forward, stop talking about "Guilds" - talk about what it is about Guilds that concern you.