The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Genar-Hofoen]

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.

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.

Which didn't address the point of "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."

Which only makes the concept of KoS lists that more toxic to the game.

Which only makes the concept of guilds in Elite: Dangerous equally toxic to the game.

 

[Theodrid]

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.

Are we really gonna start playing the 'link good review/opinion', 'link bad review/opinion' game?

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Indeed - although I wonder as to the efficiency of searching through an ever-growing list when trying to decide whether to attack a player....

 

[Gibbonici]

That list doesn't need to be compiled until people are willing to agree that guilds are an acceptable addition to the game. What's the point in throwing a mountain of information out there when people are tripping over the pebbles at the base?

Maybe it would advance the discussion?

There have probably been tens of thousands of posts on this subject over the years, and almost all of them might as well have been cut and paste from the first dozen or so.

This thread's no different. It's full of sophism and hot air, but not a shred of actual content.

 

[Malpherian]

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.

It's not harder to manage in the term you are using it for. It's easy to have a list and go ok hes KOS. Boom.

It's harder in the aspect of "Game Management" which has absolutely nothing to do with that incident or the interaction itself. In fact not having easier management in that area actually takes away from the game, both for the victim, and for the pirate. With the system the Victim knows he's KOS, and wont be taken by surprise, maybe even be able to avoid the encounter if he wishes. And the Attacker will get more of a challenge from a prepared opponent.

Both win with that system.

 

[SiriusSeven]

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.

a letter from an EvE dev?

 

[Malpherian]

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.

That's posted on massively as a letter from an ED dev (according to the info). So he's a Dev (or was) from ED.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed - although I wonder as to the efficiency of searching through an ever-growing list when trying to decide whether to attack a player....

You obviously havn't seen GoonSwarmd's kos list, it's completely automated, over 100k people on it and it will find one instantly for you, even has an overlay you can use which tells you if the person your targeting is KOS. It could easily be used for ED if a group wanted to do so. It's point and click.

So no it doesn't take longer.

 

[Cody]

That's posted on massively as a letter from an ED dev (according to the info). So he's a Dev (or was) from ED.

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.

Seems like a strange thing for an ED Dev to write - but you're the expert.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

a letter from an EvE dev?

No, actually he is an indie dev and writer for MassivelyOP. Still misquoted, but the guy knows what he's talking about. It was a letter TO the devs, not from them. And it's already been on the forums.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=84189

 

[Asp Explorer]

That's posted on massively as a letter from an ED dev (according to the info). So he's a Dev (or was) from ED.

He appears to be an indie beardy.

and as for Goon KOS lists, and automation of game overlays so that you don't even have to think about anything - that's more than a bit lame. I wonder if, and how many times I'm on there

 

[Herik]

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.

And my argument made other times; -being hard to manage is good. Your applying it in select situation, I'd apply it regarding most Guild questions.

 

[SiriusSeven]

No, actually he is an indie dev and writer for MassivelyOP. Still misquoted, but the guy knows what he's talking about. It was a letter TO the devs, not from them. And it's already been on the forums.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=84189

thanks! Provenance is important for these types of things!

 

[Malpherian]

Seems like a strange thing for an ED Dev to write - but you're the expert.

Having deved for a game I can say I didn't actually "get to play it" until after we got it into beta, and the experience from developing to playing was vastly different.

You always here players say sometimes that they wished the developers actually played their own games. There's a reason for this. Some things look good when being developed, but when put in practice are horrible ideas. In games where devs don't actually play, it's very obvious why this is the case.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Maybe it would advance the discussion?

There have probably been tens of thousands of posts on this subject over the years, and almost all of them might as well have been cut and paste from the first dozen or so.

This thread's no different. It's full of sophism and hot air, but not a shred of actual content.

You can't advance the discussion when the other part of the discussions response is "No." They've at least got to reach the maybe stage before anything you say is just needlessly confusing the situation.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's posted on massively as a letter from an ED dev (according to the info). So he's a Dev (or was) from ED.

- - - Updated - - -



You obviously havn't seen GoonSwarmd's kos list, it's completely automated, over 100k people on it and it will find one instantly for you, even has an overlay you can use which tells you if the person your targeting is KOS. It could easily be used for ED if a group wanted to do so. It's point and click.

So no it doesn't take longer.

Not according to this page: here.

That KoS list sounds like a good enough reason (as if we needed another) not to facilitate Guilds in-game....

 

[CMDR Commander]

The name of this game was not intended to be used as an excuse for meaningless player killing.

The name of this game was not intended to be used as an excuse for warping the meaning of Open play to say that Open Play only means "PvP Mode".

Which part of the above three sentences do you not understand?

Which part of David Braben explaining the origin of this game's name in this video do you not understand?

I don't understand how he's able to keep a straight face saying this.

I don't need an any excuse to kill a player and it's not for you to decide how meaningfull it is if it obeys in game rules. There are no rules banning PvP and no anti-PvP gestapo around to enforce such bans. Same applies to PvE, no one is going to punish you for practicing it. There are consequences but I'm ready to deal with them. And yes, Open includes freeform PvP by design, like it or not.

What I really don't get is what this ye olde Solo vs Open debate has to do with ingame guilds and player owned structures?

 

[Malpherian]

No, actually he is an indie dev and writer for MassivelyOP. Still misquoted, but the guy knows what he's talking about. It was a letter TO the devs, not from them. And it's already been on the forums.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=84189

Ah ok I misread it.

- - - Updated - - -

Not according to this page: here.

That KoS list sounds like a good enough reason (as if we needed another) not to facilitate Guilds in-game....

your going to have them anyway, having guilds isnt going to make people, or stop people from doing what your terming as "bad".. I mean really...

 

[Cody]

Ah ok I misread it.

<chortles> Yes...

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Not according to this page: here.

That KoS list sounds like a good enough reason (as if we needed another) not to facilitate Guilds in-game....

That KOS list is a third party creation that exists entirely on it's own. It doesn't need guilds to serve it's purpose. You're also forgetting the positive aspect of KOS lists, and that's to keep passive players from interacting with those people. If they see the name of a pirate on a KOS list while flipping through the contacts they can make leave before he ever gets the chance to interdict.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I don't understand how he's able to keep a straight face saying this.

I don't need an any excuse to kill a player and it's not for you to decide how meaningfull it is if it obeys in game rules. There are no rules banning PvP and no anti-PvP gestapo around to enforce such bans. Same applies to PvE, no one is going to punish you for practicing it. There are consequences but I'm ready to deal with them. And yes, Open includes freeform PvP by design, like it or not.

What I really don't get is what this ye olde Solo vs Open debate has to do with ingame guilds and player owned structures?

It's more to do with people focusing on the name of the game to justify their point of view that the game should be dangerous, rather than me trying to impose rules that players shouldn't be able to kill other players in Open - that would be ridiculous of me to say that.