I couldn't imagine too many signing up to the forums but haven't played the game. Personally I looked at the forums before playing but didn't sign up until after I brought the game, why would you bother?
The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.
- Thread starter VladtheImpaler
- Start date
- Status
I couldn't imagine too many signing up to the forums but haven't played the game. Personally I looked at the forums before playing but didn't sign up until after I brought the game, why would you bother?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Who knows.... However the possibility that non-players have voted renders the result of the poll meaningless.
Fair enough. You have no basis for claiming that it will be "in a separate area", you have no reason for saying that it wouldn't be anything like EVE, you have no inside knowledge about the breakdown of the 55/45 vote, you have no evidence to support people being better behaved in guilds and there is absolutely no ground to expect that once one step is taken down that path that more won't be demanded with the work already done cited as reasons for why more should be added to "complete the experience".
The idea's dumb and I hate it because people that are granted power over other people cannot be trusted. At all. Happy now?
I have no problem with guilds (I'm in one, although I prefer the term "fleet", "faction" or "wing" - guilds is a lame word for the 34th century.) However, I'm very much against player factions having control of in-game assets like stations.
If such stations were instantiated:
- Would they be separated from the background sim? If yes, wouldn't they, then, be untouchable redoubts for player factions?
- What about the outfitters?
- What about the commodities market?
- How would the station function, given that it's the core interface between the players and the sim?
- If stations weren't separated from the sim, stations have a bulletin board for players to interact with the factions/BGS. Who would script the missions? Giving player groups access to the scripting engine could be disastrous, as it would be very open to abuse.
- If the stations were part of the sim, can you imagine the rage threads when someone flips the station to the control of another faction? It's almost worth supporting player-factions just for that. You'd need a bathful of popcorn.
I wouldn't, personally, mind my affiliation being clear in-game. I fly with Communism Interstellar, Comrade. I'm proud to be associated with a fine group of people, and would enjoy others being able to see my affiliation through both custom decals and in the target information pane in the main screen. I'm no PvP expert (indeed, I prefer to avoid it if possible, and I'm pretty good at that!) but I'm sure it would cause some heat to come my way. I don't mind that; it's part of being in a group and I know how to deal with it. However, a great many other players categorically do not want anything at all to do with PvP, even in open (and there are plenty of valid reasons to play in open, even if you wish to avoid PvP). I see no reason why my desires should overrule those of others, however - there's no valid reason to privilege me over other players because I happen to be in a fleet.
Last edited:
The poll was advertised in 3 seperate threads on a forum with a high percentage of guild oriented players.
There were lots of new signings just for this poll as moderators have confirmed. By doing this they shot themselves in the foot by demonstrating how large organised groups can have a dissproportionate influence. It's easier to mobilise social groups than it is to mobilise individuals after all.
Second, eventhough this poll was sockpuppeted, it only got a narrow majority.
Third, the option with the highest consensus got the least amount of voted, dividing the community further on the issue.
I think you interpret my suggestions the wrong way. I don't mean that people should fence off a system. Just build a platform. That's it, nothing more.
You say "why should we solo player's game [...]" Well two things:
1) Why should we multiplayer players be limited?
2) Why don't you play in Solo and never see anyone else? Since I never proposed to shut down a system, you should NEVER be limited! This is one of the things I can't stretch enough - DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE ABLE TO SHUT DOWN SYSTEMS. But do make them able to build a refueling platform. ;-)
We should not cater them because they are fast, we should cater players who want to have more fun. What is the problem with more fun? If I find it fun to go to the center of the universe along a string of refueling platforms, then why shouldn't I?
Yeah, screw people who want more! Why should we have planetary landings and be able to ride around on moons? Screw the more!
Yeah that was sarcastic... But my point is that more can be good. The important part is how much and for who. Else you should be against expansions in general and jut be happy with the product as is. And if you are not against expansions and there would be one with player bases, suddenly you're against expansions?
Yeah people should all feel not special and the same... You are neutral! ;-)
Yes people want the crown. That's what drives humanity.
And I personally don't want on top, I just want a band of friends to play together in one of my top games no matter who's in charge. Should that not be?
Same here, but the other side ;-)Because a hardcore minority will continue to insist and, unless at least a few people speak out to remind everyone why it's not going to happen (and shouldn't happen), it will only embolden those demands. Kinda sucks that we have to keep going through it over and over, but it is what it is.
This thread is a friendly discussion about what the pro-people would like, but the anti-clan/station people keep insisting that everything should stay solo. :s
I don't like your first sentence. It states that doing so WILL ruin the game. Moves are not set in stone. Maybe it will even boost the fun factor for all you know! You just don't THINK so.
Edit, forgot to respond to the second part: Yes people in Open would be affected. But isn't that why Open is... well... open? Open is the multiplayer version of Solo. And should there not be more multiplayer tools in a multiplayer version?
Then please, by all means, remove polls in general from this forum. I thought Frontier listed to 'the people' and this forum. That means polls as well. But if polls are meaningless, the should be removed before they give the wrong impression.
Last edited:
It would be great if the developers would voice an opinion about the two separate subjects. (clans/guild and player owned objects)
Where one way or the other, it would put a rest to the discussion.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The ability to create polls has been removed previously, now it seems to be back. Frontier certainly read the forums, however they have never, to my knowledge, indicated that the opinion of the forums would ever drive the game design (although there have been instances where a strong forum reaction has prompted change within the game).
When the entire player-base is not informed of the existence of a poll, how can the result of that poll be deemed representative? (as well as the fact that the result is known on a vote-by-vote basis rather than hidden until the poll has ended).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Because they're the same limitations that apply to all players.
Very limited assets like this are OK, I guess, but where would the fuel come from? At the moment, resources seem to appear ex nihilo at stations, although it has been mooted that NPCs trade in goods. Regardless, if you have a refuelling platform, are you going to look after it, or are you going to assume that FD will stock it for you with handwavium? If it's an asset belonging to a player, is it intended to make a profit? If so, the owner will need to work for it. For small, very limited things like refuelling platforms, sure, this would probably be doable within the BGS, but for larger platforms, even outposts, I'm not so sure.
And you can already do that in the game with no changes and therefore no effects on any players.
This is because the group arguing for player-owned assets really haven't thought through what they are asking for - not one person so far in this thread has given a coherent answer with regard to how such assets would interact with the background sim. I'm beginning to suspect that this is because those people have no idea that there's a background sim at all.
Multiplayer tools is a separate issue to player-owned assets.
Polls alllow for specious ad populum arguments. Just because a proposed gameplay mechanic is popular doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Thanks for the links.
So I guess it's done with the discussion of clans/guilds for now :-(
I think they are not right to force Solo in Online play, but I will respect the decision and will try later again to see if they changed their minds.
At least the player owned objects are still on the table:
" I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. "
Quote from the interview above.
It may be sarcastic, but it's still a strawman.
This "more". This particular example of more. If you would have read my post and the post I was replying to it would have been clear that I was targeting a specific "more", namely the "more" mentioned in the post I replied to.
I'm not against expansions.
I'm not even against player bases as long as they're limited in influence to that player.
I am against strawman and generalisations. But I'm glad to see them used as a counterargument. It's shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the counterargument.
Last edited:
Well least you are being honest.
There are so many unknowns and it most likely will never happen as FD seem to have some issue with it, maybe for the reasons above maybe something else.
In principle I feel it would add greatly to the game for those who are looking for a mmo experience. Those who are not after this still could stay in safer area or play in PVE - solo..
Lots of good questions and I suspect these are some of the issues with creating guild bases.
You say below a gameplay mechanic doesn't have to be a good idea. This is exactly why we have not stated how. That's for the devvs to think about. I think I should be able to want something without going into specifics where the people against only can shoot at.
But here's a small idea: (I call player-owned assets 'outposts')
- The current powers don't tolerate outposts near their territory, so you are not able to build something within 10-20 systems of power-owned territory. (sort Permit-like system?)
- Player should not be able to claim more then the outpost they've built. (read: more as in territory etc, so nothing can be officially controlled/closed)
- Every system can only have one outpost per star. (not star system) (reason: universal law for independent outposts)
- Outposts must be supplied with all kinds of materials, or else the owner loses claim. (This works best with a clan-system, but is not a requirement)
- The one who has a claimed outpost, has lower cost for repair and fuel (and clan-members get the same discounts if there would be clans)
- People who do not own the outpost can still dock there as they can in a power-owned station and buy fuel(and ammo?) with the same prices. Unless they attacked it of course.
- - Within the same price range as mentioned, the owner get 1% of the cost of fuel as a kind of tax. (To be clear: the price would not be higher then it is ingame right now)
- NPC characters should be able to supply the outposts with fuel (and ammo?) to sell, as this will give the universe more life and a reason why there is fuel
- If there would be clans, the outpost could be owned by the clan instead of an individual.
- For the rest, powers ignore these outposts because they simply don't care. They are too small to care about and have enough trouble at home with other powers without troubling themselves with a few independent outposts.
As I said, I really hope this won't be used to shot down line by line, I just wanted to give a 'coherent answer'. This was an idea from the top of my head, and I do Frontier could do a lot better then me
That is the one downside of this thread. These are indeed two separate issues.
1) Multiplayer tools (aka clans)
2) Player-owned assets
True that, but it may give someone ideas.
Edit: typo.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... or, as has been suggested previously, those who are not after this could stay in Open and the contentious features could have a mode all to themselves (that anyone could play in, naturally).
What about the influence mechanics?You say below a gameplay mechanic doesn't have to be a good idea. This is exactly why we have not stated how. That's for the devvs to think about. I think I should be able to want something without going into specifics where the people against only can shoot at.
But here's a small idea: (I call player-owned assets 'outposts')
- The current powers don't tolerate outposts near their territory, so you are not able to build something within 10-20 systems of power-owned territory. (sort Permit-like system?)
- Player should not be able to claim more then the outpost they've built. (read: more as in territory etc, so nothing can be officially controlled/closed)
- Every system can only have one outpost per star. (not star system) (reason: universal law for independent outposts)
- Outposts must be supplied with all kinds of materials, or else the owner loses claim. (This works best with a clan-system, but is not a requirement)
- The one who has a claimed outpost, has lower cost for repair and fuel (and clan-members get the same discounts if there would be clans)
- People who do not own the outpost can still dock there as they can in a power-owned station and buy fuel(and ammo?) with the same prices. Unless they attacked it of course.
- - Within the same price range as mentioned, the owner get 1% of the cost of fuel as a kind of tax. (To be clear: the price would not be higher then it is ingame right now)
- NPC characters should be able to supply the outposts with fuel (and ammo?) to sell, as this will give the universe more life and a reason why there is fuel
- If there would be clans, the outpost could be owned by the clan instead of an individual.
- For the rest, powers ignore these outposts because they simply don't care. They are too small to care about and have enough trouble at home with other powers without troubling themselves with a few independent outposts.
As I said, I really hope this won't be used to shot down line by line, I just wanted to give a 'coherent answer'. This was an idea from the top of my head, and I do Frontier could do a lot better then me
I appreciate the point you make that the above are just ideas, but I would ask you this: Would you be happy for me and my fellow Communists to come in and flip it out from under you?
*edit*
And I don't accept the point that it's for the dev to think about. It is, but not exclusively. People on this thread are making quite specific suggestions - player-owned stations, outposts, fuel platforms - that would fundamentally alter the way the game plays for everyone unless they were part of the sim. If they're part fo the sim, the idea of player-owned stations is moot because they can be flipped, and you might as well just ally your group to an in-game faction; it's the same thing except for a name.
Last edited:
Influence is not a thing because where I vision outposts, there are no other parties.
Thanks, and of course I wouldn't be ;-)
This was a reaction to the statement there where no coherent idea's out there. There are, and instead of just saying it I wrote something to make the point that there are idea's but they probably are not as perfectly fleshed out as the devvs could.
That leads to your edit.
Simple one-lined idea's are just for discussion in here and Frontier's people. They don't have to be coherent or make sense. Just idea's. Idea's are what drives humanity in general, and I think Frontier's developers are the same. Input, processing and output. The development life cycle so to say. Even if that means 99% of the input is dismissed because they do not envision it.
Look up Argeno in the galaxy map (or, until quite recently) Mikunn. There are one-faction systems already in the game. I can't support the creation/insertion of factions that cannot be undermined - that fundamentally breaks one of the central premises of the game. This is why every system in populated space that I've ever seen is within expansion range of at least one other faction.
You've given ideas, but have missed my point about the background sim. The BGS is the backbone of the game - it affects literally every aspect that is presented to players - from availability of outfitting, through the availability of missions, to prices in the commodities market and system security.
If we're just discussing ideas, I'm quite within the bounds of adult conversation to point out ones that aren't very good or, indeed, haven't been thought through at all, such as player-owned assets.
You've given ideas, but have missed my point about the background sim. The BGS is the backbone of the game - it affects literally every aspect that is presented to players - from availability of outfitting, through the availability of missions, to prices in the commodities market and system security.
If we're just discussing ideas, I'm quite within the bounds of adult conversation to point out ones that aren't very good or, indeed, haven't been thought through at all, such as player-owned assets.
Last edited:
Oh how simple it is to dismiss something you don't like with "haven't been thought through at all"...
First of all, I told about refueling, I didn't said anything about outfitting, missions or commodities etc. That's because I didn't envision any in my current 'outpost' idea. The KISS principle. A lot of the anti folk think about intrusive EVE-like stations. As I mentioned before, I just like the idea of simple outposts out there, as a gather point in deep space or something.
Like I said (and you didn't agree with, as well) that the devvs should think about is that I just like the idea of player-owned assets. I don't pretend to know everything, or thought about everything. They know exactly what's going on in the heart of the game and I don't.
Unfortunately the anti-people (it was mentioned somewhere in this thread before, are 40.000 out of 500.000+ players -> not my numbers!) are so scared of change that they want to intrude on an idea thread with a loud 'NO' instead of improving ideas. Why Can't we 'pro' people have an idea thread where ideas are build upon instead of having it written of with a 'thoughtless' NO?
In a conversation I don't expect only a 'NO', but more like 'it could be better if we did this or that'. For example, 'It isn't good this way because of influence. Lets think of a way to work around the issue. Maybe the outpost should not be a faction?'.
This could actually be a conversation!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
"No" is a perfectly reasonable answer though. To suggest otherwise would mean that any proposal would have to be met with a search for compromise - not simply a consideration whether the proposal has merit or not.
The need for change needs to be determined before any discussion relating to the scope of change is undertaken.
Last edited:
- Status