While it's interesting, what does that have to do with the question whether Elite should have guild and player owned station features?
The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.
- Thread starter VladtheImpaler
- Start date
- Status
While it's interesting, what does that have to do with the question whether Elite should have guild and player owned station features?
ED is one day maybe too a game withoug Muliplayer people playing alone when the servers are gone, its perfectly possible. And it does provide ways for people to play together, that you are not happy with them does not mean they do not exist.
We speculate here over "whats going on with ED in 20 Years", its just throwing around predictions. Yours as good as mine, we both don't know what will be. We can't.
Yeah, that means something else entirely from what you're thinking. In Gemstone it's possible to stunlock someone for hours at a time, cripple them and leave them stranded where no help will be available to rescue them for days, etc.... That's the kind of disruptive behavior they're referring to.
You'll get punished for talking about COD before you get punished for murdering a player.
Exceptions being roleplay reasons, self defense, revenge, etc...
The annual PvP tourneys start in the fall. It's a big festival that draws in the vast majority of the player base.
It is an accepted part of the game and even encouraged as long as it doesn't result in net negative behavior.
I played the game for 17 years.
I really don't believe anyone is fearful of guild support. The issue of concern for most players is their perception of Opening Pandora's box, or how far down the rabbit hole does taking the red pill go?
Improved comms for a private group in Open. Sure I think that is okay. I would venture that most of the committed groups use their own TeamSpeak server or something similar already. So ED would have to make an effort to improve that functionality. Using TS also removes the possibility that ED are recording all your comms chatter in case of disciplinary action.
-
If ED said "Okay, as an experiment you can have a guild hangout, but it has to be 5kLY outside the bubble... there is nobody to trade with out there, no other stations. Considering the "in game cost" in materials to build the station at Yembo, or wherever it was, building a station would be years of work. Maybe an outpost would be significantly cheaper? It would still mean that unless your guild hangout was near inhabited space, or near other "emergent guilds" I don't see directly how general gameplay content other than exploration (and mining) would be available?
-
At this point the question is, "Does this mean guilds would be able to have hangouts within the bubble?". If they do, what happens to a non-guild player, or a group or solo player, who approaches that hangout?
Are they allowed access, are they charged a docking fee, are they shoot on site?
-Will guilds hope for shared hangars, shared "banks", the ability to "mentor" (in whatever form that takes).
-If the over-arching answer is "If you aren't in the guild, or even in Open, none of this will apply / interact / inconvenience you" it will not exist... the curiosity there is it is all one shared galaxy and 1 shared BGS, even across Mac and XBox1.
-
Personally it is this level of "What is the next request?" which causes players happy with the current status quo to react less than positively to requests for guilds and / or player owned structures.
Last edited:
It's not about whether I am happy with them. I don't intend to ever use guild functions. It's a matter of whether they exist, of which in most part you are sorely mistaken, and how well they work, which in all cases is abysmally.
No, I'm not speculating what's happening in 20 years, because no game that lacks the social features we're asking for has survived past the 5 year mark.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Interesting because E: D does not have any rules in place analogous to:
The rule as written (quoted above) seems to suggest otherwise, however I will bow to your knowledge of that game.
Basicily what you are saying is all you are saying is facts. But I'm pretty sure its not, even more so when its about predictions of the Future, like seriously.
Slippery slope argument is not an argument, it's just more fearmongering.
- - - Updated - - -
If you're pretty sure it's not, provide examples, evidence, and data to support your case.
I'm not predicting the future, I'm reciting history, the fact that history loves to repeat itself is nothing of my creation imaginary or likewise.
Except it's NOT 'their' territory, no matter how much such groups may try to put that forth, but let's conveniently ignore that shall we ........
What certain people have to come to grips with is, however unpalatable it may be, that Frontier chose - yes, chose - from an early stage to EXCLUDE player-run guild-based play. For. A. Reason. They didn't want a game with that content (remember this is the game THEY...ie Frontier.... wanted to play). And, I might add, knowing very well what was out in the market by way of MMOs and the various approaches. They knew what they were doing. Many (most?) of us bought in as that suited us also. You bought in too, knowing this even if you disagreed with it (in the hope you could agitate sufficiently to change it perhaps?). No sign from Frontier as yet that they're planning to about-face on that, despite these sorts of threads. Deal with it! I think you'll find Frontier are very much smart enough to know from reading threads like these enough to decide for themselves whether their strategy has been vindicated (and in my opinion it has been, very much so). A stacked poll that's been debunked by Mods and constant suggestions from some that we can all switch to solo if we don't like guilds does nothing for the cause of those pushing for guilds - and thinking that Frontier aren't smart enough to work that out would be selling them short.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The expressed concern probably stems from comments like:
I know that you later tried to qualify that statement - but by itself it does not suggest peace and harmony with the introduction of minimal social features.
"May" be in violation.
I believe you rebutted someone else's statement earlier based upon ambiguous language in a terms of service. The same applies here. Gemstone has no level cap, which can put a huge gap between players and you naturally don't want them abusing that, and has abilities that can wipe out entire towns. That statement basically equates to "If you cast Meteor Swarm in town, you better have a very bloody good reason for wiping out 20 newbs in the surrounding area. Otherwise after you get done spending a week in jail the GM's will decide your appropriate punishment."
The game has it's own microculture, and the rules bow to that microculture above all else. Doing anything else after 2 decades of the community creating the games history is just folly.
there have been snide comments tied onto the end of nearly every post from a few members posting on this thread.
I gave you two. Can give you more, but I'm sure thats useless since you already have forgotten the first two I give you just a few minutes ago.
Saying ED will fail because of whatever is predicting something that happens in the Future. I promise!
Minimal social features is what we currently have. The majority of the complaints the community has about PvE vs PvP, unwanted player interactions, toxic community and inability to keep their friends playing the game stem from that. I've been saying this was a problem, and causing the problems I've listed, since early beta. Not a single person has been able to prove otherwise and most agreed back then.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed, "may" means that it might be acceptable but at the same time allows the GMs to sanction players for doing so.
Sadly, no analogous rule exists to at least discourage players in a combat Anaconda one-shotting players in Sidewinders.
No you didn't, you provided two irrelevant examples of single player games.
And again: What does that have to do with the question whether Elite should have guild or player owned station features?
Nothing.
The described behaviour is simply possible in Elite and little will stop players from ganking each other. Neither today nor in the future, unless rules or measures are introduced against it. If rules were introduced (which IMO, is a bit overdue), guilds, whether formally implemented or not, would have to abide by them as much as solo players. How much that is (edit: in practice), depends pretty much on how strictly those rules will be enforced.
Which is still a completely separate topic, unrelated to guilds.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Does FFXI have Guilds?
(and yes, I know that is it coming to its end after over 11 years)
Remember this is the same game which I said continues to thrive because the community enforced it's own standards of play. Back in it's heyday the game never had enough staff to combat any possible large scale player misbehavior. They didn't need that staff because the players saw to it themselves. That option is also available to ED players.
The Elite series also has its own microculture, has been like that since the first Elite came out 30 years ago, and the Kickstarter, I think you'll find, was backed by many people who played the original games. The DDA was a part of the process of helping Frontier shape Elite: Dangerous.
Your arguing for guild support in Elite is in fact going up against this microculture.
- Status