The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Windscreen Smudge]

Player interaction can take and does take place through the background sim - it doesn't require direct interaction - which is just as well given in practical terms the maximum number of players that can directly interact is 20 ish.

Adding more modes doesn't change that in any way - or have any practical effect on direct player interaction which is already severely limited as above.

I shouldn't even have to tell you why the idea that the background simulation is player interaction is patently false. If you can't even provide a legitimate point to the discussion don't bother.

Nobody has the answer - except Frontier and even their current number may change. No-one can stop the player-base dividing - every single player can create a Private Group to play with other players or can play in Solo. Which content *relies* on player interaction? Adding social tools (Guilds or something else?) to the game may add content - whether players would enjoy that content is unknown at this time.

To attempt to estimate how many players who currently play in Open might leave is guesswork.

"Nothing would change" - an interesting prediction - by the time we knew the answer it would be too late.

The player base has divided as far as it's going to divide as it stand after having a year of opportunities to do so.

Which content requires player interaction? Oh I don't know... WINGS? PowerPlay encourages direct conflict between players, even certain modules rely directly on player interaction such as fuel limpets.

"We don't know if it will" is incorrect. We do know. I have said and proven time and again that there is 30 years of empirical evidence that shows players enjoy and benefit from social interaction within games. Facilitating that is only natural, as humans are naturally social.

 

[ianw]

I shouldn't even have to tell you why the idea that the background simulation is player interaction is patently false. If you can't even provide a legitimate point to the discussion don't bother.

It's not direct player interaction - as I said. As Sandro himself said the idea behind PP was allow players to play the background simulation - in other words they interact with each other and compete via the background simulation.

Needless to say I'll decide whether to bother or not - your consent is not required.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The player base has divided as far as it's going to divide as it stand after having a year of opportunities to do so.

Which content requires player interaction? Oh I don't know... WINGS? PowerPlay encourages direct conflict between players, even certain modules rely directly on player interaction such as fuel limpets.

"We don't know if it will" is incorrect. We do know. I have said and proven time and again that there is 30 years of empirical evidence that shows players enjoy and benefit from social interaction within games. Facilitating that is only natural, as humans are naturally social.

Again, a prediction - if a heretofore unannounced (and known to be contentious) set of game features were to be implemented then I foresee that your prediction might well be optimistic.

As has been said previously, Wings do not require players to be in Open. Powerplay may encourage some players to enter into direct conflict - but it does not specifically reward it. The stellar service provided by the Fuel Rats may be offered in Private Groups (to which they would, presumably, be accepted in short order) - otherwise a player only needs to switch to Open briefly to receive the fuel (as players are advised to log out of the game when waiting for the rescue service to arrive to save remaining fuel / oxygen).

Empirical evidence may suggest an outcome but cannot prove it. From the links previously provided (on brief inspection) there seems to be no mention of the effect of Guilds on unaffiliated players. Humans are naturally social with their own "tribe" - empirical evidence suggests that when opposing tribes meet there can be catastrophic consequences.

 

[Cody]

... otherwise a player only needs to switch to Open briefly to receive the fuel...

Off-topic for a moment, but as a Solo player, that option would not be acceptable to me.

 

[SiriusSeven]

It's not direct player interaction - as I said. As Sandro himself said the idea behind PP was allow players to play the background simulation - in other words they interact with each other and compete via the background simulation.

Needless to say I'll decide whether to bother or not - your consent is not required.

which, of course, is why Sandro wrote:

""But for me the best reward is how Powerplay changes combat," Lead Designer Sandro Sammarco says "The Pilots Federation waives all penalties for engaging invaders in combat during times of war, so you'll have license to attack anyone from a rival power in your own territory without incurring a bounty. We're giving players a reason to engage in PVP against supporters of other factions, and a chance to feel like part of a team even if you prefer to play alone.


http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=b0a8ebba0b

 

[Robert Maynard]

Off-topic for a moment, but as a Solo player, that option would not be acceptable to me.

It's up to the Fuel Rats. It would be beneficial to Solo players if NPC SAR services were implemented.

 

[Cody]

It would be beneficial to Solo players if NPC SAR services were implemented.

Indeed - but I don't see that happening. Cody's Caveat: never run out of fuel!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed - but I don't see that happening. Cody's Caveat: never run out of fuel!

Otherwise known as "always fit a fuel scoop and an auxiliary fuel tank"?

 

[Cody]

Otherwise known as "always fit a fuel scoop and an auxiliary fuel tank"?

<hugs fuel scoop> Yep!

 

[ianw]

which, of course, is why Sandro wrote:

""But for me the best reward is how Powerplay changes combat," Lead Designer Sandro Sammarco says "The Pilots Federation waives all penalties for engaging invaders in combat during times of war, so you'll have license to attack anyone from a rival power in your own territory without incurring a bounty. We're giving players a reason to engage in PVP against supporters of other factions, and a chance to feel like part of a team even if you prefer to play alone.

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=b0a8ebba0b

Oh don't misunderstand Sirius - I'm not denying PP also encourages direct player interaction - but it's not only about that which is of course why Sandro also wrote very recently;

Hello Commander Raist!

Don't worry, I'm not going to try to force you to like Powerplay . But I do have a few comments you might find interesting.

Firstly, and importantly, Elite will not "become" Powerplay. It kind of can't, really. It's an addition to the background simulation, nothing more or less. Now you don't have to believe me, but we are working on lots of other stuff as well, equally important, and covering different aspects of the game, including the "core" experience, if you will. Elite is still about the actions you take as the Commander of a space ship.

When I look at Powerplay, what I actually see, at its heart, is a part of the background simulation where AI is replaced with human Commanders. When you think about it in terms of its systems, that shouldn't be too much of an outlandish concept. And I hold that there's something pretty cool about this, for everyone, including Commanders who have nothing to do with Powerplay directly.

So yes, we want to work on the system to increase the fun factor, make the rewards for taking part more appropriate, but it's key to remember that this is only to keep interesting shifts in the backdrop for everyone.

I can understand the fear that Powerplay is all there is, simply because it's the most visible thing at the moment. That's because it's live, and because we feel it could benefit from changes (and this is why we're talking, right

).

There's other stuff coming, and I reckon, in time, people are going to realise that Powerplay is just another facet, another way to play the game, but certainly not the only way, and certainly not the "best" way.

So, I could be wrong, but I think an amount of the flak that the system is getting is down to this mismatch in perception of how important Powerplay is. The truth is, as long as Powerplay's interesting enough for *some* folk, it's working. But that shouldn't mean we don't try to maximize the number of folk who like it, surely?

In conclusion, for those folk who dislike Powerplay: that's fine, but there's no need to dislike it purely on the grounds that it is Elite. It's not. It's a bit of Elite, like trading, minor factions, the crime system etc.

We have an ongoing dev cycle for the game, for which I'm eternally grateful to the powers that be for, because it means we get to carry on making things better and better in this game I love. And part of that cycle is this bit, where we get to collect feedback from the folk who play the game, which, traumatic though it can be - I also love!

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=169489&p=2592790&viewfull=1#post2592790

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Again, a prediction - if a heretofore unannounced (and known to be contentious) set of game features were to be implemented then I foresee that your prediction might well be optimistic.

As has been said previously, Wings do not require players to be in Open. Powerplay may encourage some players to enter into direct conflict - but it does not specifically reward it. The stellar service provided by the Fuel Rats may be offered in Private Groups (to which they would, presumably, be accepted in short order) - otherwise a player only needs to switch to Open briefly to receive the fuel (as players are advised to log out of the game when waiting for the rescue service to arrive to save remaining fuel / oxygen).

Empirical evidence may suggest an outcome but cannot prove it. From the links previously provided (on brief inspection) there seems to be no mention of the effect of Guilds on unaffiliated players. Humans are naturally social with their own "tribe" - empirical evidence suggests that when opposing tribes meet there can be catastrophic consequences.

Wings require OTHER PLAYERS, and those players, should you be in a guild, don't have to be exclusively guild members. Powerplay rewards player conflict because the dominant side in the conflict prevents the other side from making progress, thus they don't need to spend as much time grinding the missions. That is a directly influential mechanic. Fuel limpets require more than one player. Your comment directly addressed what kind of content relies on more than one player.

30 years of success is proof. 30 years of failure is also proof. Multiplayer games with strong social tools are successful. Multiplayer games without them are not. This has been happening for 30 years.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Wings require OTHER PLAYERS, and those players, should you be in a guild, don't have to be exclusively guild members. Powerplay rewards player conflict because the dominant side in the conflict prevents the other side from making progress, thus they don't need to spend as much time grinding the missions. That is a directly influential mechanic. Fuel limpets require more than one player. Your comment directly addressed what kind of content relies on more than one player.

30 years of success is proof. 30 years of failure is also proof. Multiplayer games with strong social tools are successful. Multiplayer games without them are not. This has been happening for 30 years.

Apologies I was conflating player interaction and Open mode. Needless to say, players can choose to interact perfectly well in Private Groups.

Very interesting then that Frontier consciously chose not to include large group social tools in their game - we have wings, so we already have a small group social toolkit - whether Frontier choose to introduce anything for larger groups is totally up to them of course.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

http://www.mud2.com/CMS/index.php 30+ years and running. Proof.

http://www.play.net/gs4/ 26 years and running. Proof.

http://discworld.imaginary.com:5678/ 24 years and running. Proof.

I can link positive examples of games with social groups running for 2 and 3 decades. Search as I might, I cannot find a single example of one that has persisted without them for any period of time. You're welcome to try yourself.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I don't understand the fear of adding guild support. Guilds are already in the game. CODE, AA, EIC, MOA, are they not already the guilds of elite? If you're a lone player in open, you already have to aviod their territory. More group tools won't do much to make that worse. It's just making it more convenient and adding more content for the groups/guilds.

I'm also digging the complete lack of self awareness of some of the people in this thread and the pve one. in one thread they are saying their unsupported style of play should be properly supported, in another they are saying another side's unsupported style of play is wrong and shouldn't be supported.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

http://discworld.imaginary.com:5678/ 24 years and running. Proof.

I highly recommend this one btw, give it a whirl, it's pretty faithful to the books.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

http://www.mud2.com/CMS/index.php 30+ years and running. Proof.

http://www.play.net/gs4/ 26 years and running. Proof.

http://discworld.imaginary.com:5678/ 24 years and running. Proof.

I can link positive examples of games with social groups running for 2 and 3 decades. Search as I might, I cannot find a single example of one that has persisted without them for any period of time. You're welcome to try yourself.

Plenty of old Games people play to this day like SMB3 or FF6 and the likes with no multiplayer at all.

Its of course hard to say how many, there are no official numbers, but people who keep on playing these Games exist.

 

[ianw]

I don't understand the fear of adding guild support. Guilds are already in the game. CODE, AA, EIC, MOA, are they not already the guilds of elite? If you're a lone player in open, you already have to aviod their territory. More group tools won't do much to make that worse. It's just making it more convenient and adding more content for the groups/guilds.

I'm also digging the complete lack of self awareness of some of the people in this thread and the pve one. in one thread they are saying their unsupported style of play should be properly supported, in another they are saying another side's unsupported style of play is wrong and shouldn't be supported.

Was thinking earlier that the PVE and Guild proponents could form some sort of unholy mutually beneficial alliance and support each others campaigns! A PVE mode wouldn't have guilds and Guilds would be implemented in open.

Wouldn't help me much as a lone wolf in open though.

 

[Robert Maynard]

http://www.mud2.com/CMS/index.php 30+ years and running. Proof.

http://www.play.net/gs4/ 26 years and running. Proof.

http://discworld.imaginary.com:5678/ 24 years and running. Proof.

I can link positive examples of games with social groups running for 2 and 3 decades. Search as I might, I cannot find a single example of one that has persisted without them for any period of time. You're welcome to try yourself.

Thanks for those. Interesting to find some behavioural rules on the GemStone IV page, especially with reference to initiating PvP:

ABUSIVE AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR
GemStone IV is designed for the enjoyment of everyone, and as a general rule, any behavior which is specifically targeted to lessen that enjoyment for another player, may be in violation of GemStone IV policy. This section explains the types of situations which are considered to be abusive behavior.

GemStone IV is known as a "Roleplaying Game" which means that it is assumed that the player will present their character in a manner that is consistent with the game's environment and genre (medieval fantasy). This type of play is termed "in character" (IC) and means that the player is acting out the part in a believable manner. The term "out of character" means that the player is behaving in a manner which would be inconsistent with his or her character's situation in the game. For example, if a dwarven warrior, while being attacked by hordes of orcs, began spouting off about sound card interfaces in his computer, this would be termed "out of character."

Generally, it is up to the player to decide how much he or she wants to remain in character while playing GemStone IV. However, there can exist situations where being blatantly out of character can be considered abusive behavior: for example, an individual who insists on remaining out-of-character, even when associating with a group of other players which is trying to remain in-character. When one individual is reducing the enjoyment of ther players by out-of-character behavior (be it by speech, actions, messages over a game-wide system, or any other method of communication within GemStone IV), this may be considered as disruptive behavior. Judgment of what is and is not disruptive is entirely at the discretion of Simutronics.

It is understood that there are elements of combat in GemStone IV, which will promote a competitive environment. GemStone IV has been designed to promote competition as player vs. creature, or player vs. puzzle, and not generally player vs. player. Some events may encourage player vs. player combat in a structured setting. Also, some players will choose to roleplay a competitive situation between themselves, and will combat each other. While this is acceptable, it is recommended that players limit PvP conflicts to the more structured setting. What is not acceptable is to initiate combat against unsuspecting victims. Anyone exhibiting such behavior, especially one who chooses to prey upon weaker players for his or her own enjoyment, may be in violation of GemStone IV policy.

There are many "gray areas" in terms of defining what is acceptable competition, and what is abusive behavior. In general, Simutronics will not get involved in any player vs. player conflict which is confined to a small group of players. However, if such conflict overlaps to other players, or causes a generally disruptive influence on GemStone IV in general, the participants will be warned. Simutronics reserves the right to determine which behavior is considered abusive.

Casual discussion is a part of the game. GemStone IV must not be used, however, as a venue for promotion of competing products or services. Individuals who actively promote other competing products or services within GemStone IV, may be locked out.

 

[zombieapocalypse]

In the thread there is a particularly ingenious solution. When someone plays solo, they still show up in the normal universe with everyone in open. BUT they are a different color on the radar. They can't be targeted or anything. They can still chat with open players too!

Just think how more alive the universe would be!

That would be awful and totally break immersion - having PC ships that can't be shot by other players or crashed into etc. What if such a player is attacking friendly or allied NPCs or breaking the law in front of me - I am unable to assist my allies or bring him to justice? In my view that's game breaking and a desperate, ill-thought out solution. A mechanic like that would make me leave ED.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Plenty of old Games people play to this day like SMB3 or FF6 and the likes with no multiplayer at all.

Its of course hard to say how many, there are no official numbers, but people who keep on playing these Games exist.

And it's because they have no multiplayer, and were designed around that premise, that those games do just fine. Games with multiplayer that were designed with a multiplayer experience in mind require them. And yes, ED was designed with a multiplayer experience in mind. They were even hoping that that is what would keep players playing, yet refused to fully support the features necessary to make that happen. That is the player created content that they consistently refer to as a major feature in the game.