As a 30 year Elite veteran, I can say that you have absolutely no idea what Elite is all about. How's about them apples?
The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.
- Thread starter VladtheImpaler
- Start date
- Status
As a 30 year Elite veteran, I can say that you have absolutely no idea what Elite is all about. How's about them apples?
Who is going to get put on a KOS list, the trader or the pirate?
Logic would say the pirate would be earning that esteemed rank. So now he has targets coming to him, instead of having to hunt down his prey. Sounds like his game just got better.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
You are one of several proponents - not all with the same aims, granted.
.... although the agree first, full extent of changes later approach rings alarm bells....
Knowing the full extent of the proposal would allow opponents to make an informed choice based on a finite scope.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It all depends how anti-social the group of players is to those not in their tribe....
Those I would think, would be optional determined by the guild itself, and I am sure each station would vary depending upon how much and what services the guild was willing to fund, or build into them. And yes if a guild spent the time and resources to build the damn station and fund it, they should have the right to determine it's docking rights. Can't dock at a station? Find another you can. Elite is a hostile place, don't expect everyone to be friendly just because you think they should be.
Sounds like Elite Dangerous to me.
And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion of what guilds should be, but until there is a clear consensus on that guilds should be, that discussion can be postponed.
With all of the FUD and misconceptions about guilds floating around, there is absolutely no point in trying to decide what features they should have until all of the false information is discredited and removed.
You can do that now anyway, it's just harder to manage is all.... So whats your point?
Really? - cos its not the game I'm playing at the moment.
Console yourself (xD) knowing that opinion of people like this matters jack squat. If Braben sees this functionality as a way to lure more "investors" and it's not a PITA to implement, he'll do it and he won't ask a permission from no one.
That's not a true way to play Elite? It's against the VISION™? Well boo-diddly-hoo, that VISION™ only existed in your IMAGINATION™. Untapped markets and target groups that's what exists in reality. I doubt he'll stop reaching for them because someone needs their nostalgia goggles polished on a daily basis.
I'm actually surprised FD are still prancing around the subject, esp. with inevitable PS4 port. Just copy GTA Online, m8s! Crews = groups, Apartment+garage = your own outpost. And let the cash flow.
Last edited:
CQC didn't sound like Elite either... But here we are.
So far I haven't had a single station show unprovoked hostility toward me, they all show up as green and greet me as a respected ally. It is only the players that add this layer of vindictive and senseless hostility to the game, and that is precisely the problem with letting players control space/stations or influence a large group of players via a guild structure, it becomes disproportionately vindictive.
Yep, with it completely removed from the BGS and main galaxy.....not expected but a minimal impact solution that works.
Guild structures already exist and are having that influence. It only becomes disproportionately vindictive if the mechanics disproportionately favor such behavior. ED's mechanics do no such thing.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It being harder to manage is a good thing, in my opinion. KoS lists imply targeting for someone else's reasons rather than because a player knows why the name on the list is to be targeted.
Oh another one of those.
I like to save the url to some of my quotes becuase they come in handy for times like this, so here goes (from this post)...
Ahem...
Genar_Hofoen said:
A letter from one of the Devs I found laying around on Massively:
World-building and sandbox gameplay by Brendan "Nyphur" Drain on 21-Dec-2014
Much of the criticism being levied against Elite: Dangerous right now is for its poor social tools and handling of multiplayer. If you choose to play Elite in Solo mode, then you won't bump into any other players, but you'll still be playing through the Elite servers and will still need to be online to play. The Open Play game mode throws you into the galaxy with other players, but you're actually in just one of hundreds of instances, each with a limit of up to 32 players. It's essentially a seamless lobby system that tries to match you into an instance with players of the same skill level, and that's led to a few problems.
Playing with friends is currently difficult because you frequently end up in different instances, and there are reports that players can evade PvP by simply quitting and logging in again to hopefully get matched into a different instance. This heavily fractured model is the polar opposite of EVE Online's single-shard sandbox, which has only one instance of each star system and can support thousands of players flooding into any one at a given moment.
I've written before about how EVE's single-shard design leads to more cohesive communities and makes actions in the game world much more meaningful, and I still believe that's true. Territorial warfare in EVE is significant only because there's a single copy of each star system to fight over, and piracy is an actual threat only because you can't bypass it by switching instances. News of wars and other player events are also a big deal to EVE players because they all happen on the same server and so are relevant to every single player. Elite's heavily instanced nature means it currently isn't capable of that level of interaction, which I think makes the gameplay a lot shallower.
EVE's original developers often said that Elite was part of their inspiration, but they've always been two fundamentally different games. EVE has always been a more strategic game that rewards players for learning the game mechanics, outwitting their opponents, grouping together for planned activities, and working out the optimum ways to do things. Conversely, Elite: Dangerous is an action game that favours practise, twitch-based skill, and ship progression. The limited social tools and lack of group gameplay in Elite really harm what could be an amazing multiplayer game, so I really hope that's one of the first major features to get some post-release attention.
Having played it for a few days now, I can honestly say that Elite: Dangerous is the sequel to Frontier that I've always wanted. It's still a primarily solitary experience based around exploring a galaxy and progressing to larger ships, but now it's got shiny graphics and is interspersed with the occasional freelance player on the same journey we are. But no matter how addictive Elite's minute-to-minute gameplay might be, the constantly changing nature of its instanced server model means it lacks the sense that you're in a real living world or a sense of how many other people are playing. It's missing that one element that makes MMOs special, and that puts EVE Online in a class by itself: persistence.
-------
Food for thought.
World-building and sandbox gameplay by Brendan "Nyphur" Drain on 21-Dec-2014
Much of the criticism being levied against Elite: Dangerous right now is for its poor social tools and handling of multiplayer. If you choose to play Elite in Solo mode, then you won't bump into any other players, but you'll still be playing through the Elite servers and will still need to be online to play. The Open Play game mode throws you into the galaxy with other players, but you're actually in just one of hundreds of instances, each with a limit of up to 32 players. It's essentially a seamless lobby system that tries to match you into an instance with players of the same skill level, and that's led to a few problems.
Playing with friends is currently difficult because you frequently end up in different instances, and there are reports that players can evade PvP by simply quitting and logging in again to hopefully get matched into a different instance. This heavily fractured model is the polar opposite of EVE Online's single-shard sandbox, which has only one instance of each star system and can support thousands of players flooding into any one at a given moment.
I've written before about how EVE's single-shard design leads to more cohesive communities and makes actions in the game world much more meaningful, and I still believe that's true. Territorial warfare in EVE is significant only because there's a single copy of each star system to fight over, and piracy is an actual threat only because you can't bypass it by switching instances. News of wars and other player events are also a big deal to EVE players because they all happen on the same server and so are relevant to every single player. Elite's heavily instanced nature means it currently isn't capable of that level of interaction, which I think makes the gameplay a lot shallower.
EVE's original developers often said that Elite was part of their inspiration, but they've always been two fundamentally different games. EVE has always been a more strategic game that rewards players for learning the game mechanics, outwitting their opponents, grouping together for planned activities, and working out the optimum ways to do things. Conversely, Elite: Dangerous is an action game that favours practise, twitch-based skill, and ship progression. The limited social tools and lack of group gameplay in Elite really harm what could be an amazing multiplayer game, so I really hope that's one of the first major features to get some post-release attention.
Having played it for a few days now, I can honestly say that Elite: Dangerous is the sequel to Frontier that I've always wanted. It's still a primarily solitary experience based around exploring a galaxy and progressing to larger ships, but now it's got shiny graphics and is interspersed with the occasional freelance player on the same journey we are. But no matter how addictive Elite's minute-to-minute gameplay might be, the constantly changing nature of its instanced server model means it lacks the sense that you're in a real living world or a sense of how many other people are playing. It's missing that one element that makes MMOs special, and that puts EVE Online in a class by itself: persistence.
-------
Food for thought.
Last edited:
Yes, player in ship communication works so well, and 'Wings' is having no problems...
It being harder to manage means that it's more likely that that player's name will never be removed from that list, and remain on the internet forever.
Tsk tsk; not me...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A Dev from another game - expressing an opinion - not unheard of.
As E: D uses a P2P/Server-Lite network model and cannot slow down time to suit massive instances (even if they could exist), I don't see how it could emulate EvE's perceived persistence.
- Status