The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Triblade]

"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.

It is not a reasonable answer in a thread called "The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.". It needs to be discussed, not put down with a 'no', that is not a discussion.

The need for change needs to be determined before any discussion relating to the scope of change is undertaken.

Then by all means, please start a new thread. This comment is 209 pages overdue

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is not a reasonable answer in a thread called "The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.". It needs to be discussed, not put down with a 'no', that is not a discussion.


Then by all means, please start a new thread. This comment is 209 pages overdue

It's a perfectly reasonable answer - Frontier did not create this thread - a forum member did. Some forum members would like to see Guilds / player owned structures implemented, some would not.

Strangely enough, there are threads on other topics that are now in their third major incarnation (thread post limit is 10,000 posts) - well over 20,000 posts on one particular topic. This thread is a baby by comparison....

 

[Triblade]

It's a perfectly reasonable answer

Funny. When I say I want player-owned assets I have to explain myself fully, and when the nay-sayers say 'NO' they 'get away' with it......

Ah well, to each his own I guess... No use trying it seems.

 

[Cody]

In a thread such as this, based upon a screwed poll, 'no' is an entirely appropriate answer!

 

[CYB34]

Man some people sure are selfish for free.
How does a tag under my name affects your solo gameplay?

If you like Open Play to be just an arena for duels, good for you, but others want features / mechanics that offer more than pewpew other players.

 

[JosiahD]

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!

And you conveniently forget, or choose to ignore, as do so many others, that Frontier have already said 'no' and on several occasions. The style of guild play, complete with ownership of assets and territory, that many keep insisting on (not just asking for, but insisting......) is not on Frontier's radar. Improved social and comms tools might come but the guild play? Nope. That's not to say that Frontier won't change their mind, but it won't be threads like this that do that.

And where the heck did anyone drag out a figure of 40,000 anti out 500,000??? I think I know, and it's not based on any form of accurate data that I've seen anywhere. And if it was an extrapolation of the figures in this already debunked poll it's anything but reliable. I wouldn't place much credence on those figures if I were you. And even if it were only 40,000 anti, it doesn't automatically follow that the remainder are somehow magically all in favour anyway - that would be a flawed conclusion to come to.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Oh how simple it is to dismiss something you don't like with "haven't been thought through at all"...

The thing is, I haven't just dismissed it - I've asked pertinent questions about whether or not these "player-owned stations" should be integrated into the BGS or not, and given reasons why I feel they should, and haven't received any worthwhile answers.

I've previously posted that:

1. I'm broadly in favour of player-factions. I'm in one.
2. (way back, possibly in another thread) I like the idea of an asteroid hideout for one player - it even matches with the game's backstory: cf. rock hermits in the 1984 original.
3. I'm against "immovable objects" in the ED universe - why should player factions be elevated to some god-like status where the BGS doesn't apply to them?
4. I'm against insertion by the devs on principle - I believe that things like colonisations should be possible using in-game tools only.
5. I'm for the background sim. For me, the real core of the game is the BGS, not petty squabbling between player groups behaving like teenage kids after a night on the Buckfast.
6. If you want player-owned stations, I want to be able to kick you out.
7. Some of the key things players say they want are already instantiated in the game - change your faction's name to HIP 92464 Purple Boys and you already have your own station. A sense of ownership over something is worthless if it can't be lost/destroyed/taken, yet such a mechanic where stations would be untouchable has been suggested.

It has been claimed that player-owned stations wouldn't affect the game, but by being outside the BGS they very much would. With no BGS, it would equate to either free money or a money sink. Either way, it would break the game.

 

[Dave1235]

Maybe because it is a idea many share because they see how the game could be so much more than the grind fest we have now.. I would more go with 4 out of 5 (although I would dispute that ratio if I could be bothered) have given their opinions to why they do not want it in game. It just so happens you don't want it in game..

Going by this thread more than half of those who voted want both guilds and player owned stations. Hopefully FD will look past the "special" forum posters we have on this forum and start to cater for the wider market...

Maybe if they do that they wouldn't have to milk those on here so much...

The poll was fixed from the start, it was close to the previous one until a couple of people got reddit fired up, and IIRC one chap admitted he emailed a load of mates to come and vote as a favour, check out the Mod posts, there is one that comments on a whole load (10 in the time he posted) of zero day accounts that joined the forum, voted here and left, not a single post made.

Then the thread went silent for a week or more, not even a little "I agree" from a guildy, Mmmm strange, fast forward to poll closing and its a hot topic again.

If I could remember the which Mod posted the zero day stuff I would link it, maybe someone else can fill in the gaps, take a look at Ziggys early posts (if you go to the main page on the forum and click on the posts part you can find posts by member), he posted a screenshot of the vote before it got fixed, its almost like he was expecting it to happen

Oh yeah I nearly forgot, did you look at the voting options, grouping guilds and stations from the start lol, just lol, fixed from day 1.

PS votes don't mean anything anyway, you do not have to own the game to vote, just have register on the forum, unless they are done via the game login page they are meaningless.

 

[Dave1235]

So what, if it happened it most likely happen outside the bubble of populated space, how big is the galaxy again? You could have hundreds of guilds owning stations everywhere and the average solo player wouldn't even know their existence...

A bigger issue to why it will never happen is I'm not sure how it would work as a peer 2 peer game...

Oh yeah OFC, silly me, no one will pick a central system with rares for their home, ever, I am sure of it, do remind me where CODE chose for their home again, I am a little forgetful these days .

ETA if they want a separate guild mode in the menu I will back them 100%, as long as they back a separate PVE mode in the menu too, have guilds, in your own guild mode.

 

[Fire70]

The poll was fixed from the start, it was close to the previous one until a couple of people got reddit fired up, and IIRC one chap admitted he emailed a load of mates to come and vote as a favour, check out the Mod posts, there is one that comments on a whole load (10 in the time he posted) of zero day accounts that joined the forum, voted here and left, not a single post made.

Then the thread went silent for a week or more, not even a little "I agree" from a guildy, Mmmm strange, fast forward to poll closing and its a hot topic again.

If I could remember the which Mod posted the zero day stuff I would link it, maybe someone else can fill in the gaps, take a look at Ziggys early posts (if you go to the main page on the forum and click on the posts part you can find posts by member), he posted a screenshot of the vote before it got fixed, its almost like he was expecting it to happen

Oh yeah I nearly forgot, did you look at the voting options, grouping guilds and stations from the start lol, just lol, fixed from day 1.

PS votes don't mean anything anyway, you do not have to own the game to vote, just have register on the forum, unless they are done via the game login page they are meaningless.

I can't believe how members here get so worried about FD implementing something they may not want because of some poll, even a mod is here poo haring the poll because it doesn't show what they want.

Bottom line there is a segment of the playing population who want guilds (and player owned bases which I have no idea how they would work).

Re guilds we have them now just you can't see them in game, we also have have PP guilds which you can belong to. So what would change if you could create guild yourself??

Oh yeah OFC, silly me, no one will pick a central system with rares for their home, ever, I am sure of it, do remind me where CODE chose for their home again, I am a little forgetful these days .

ETA if they want a separate guild mode in the menu I will back them 100%, as long as they back a separate PVE mode in the menu too, have guilds, in your own guild mode.

Oh you got me there good point, I was actually talking about guild owned stations and I pretty sure that your beloved FD wouldn't let guilds create stations in areas where they would become a problem to the average player. Why would they??

I have no reason why you would need a separate guild area, as we only really have one area but you choose to see who you want so if you choose only to see yourself you can still be involved..

 

[david6768]

"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.

Around these parts we call that a closed mind!

 

[Scudmungus]

Nutshell: Som askin fah supportin social system in dis game. Mi nat talkin bout dem askin fah betta chat system. Talkin bout dem askin Frontier to add tings dat promote/support social systems - call dem guilds/coprs/gangs/clubs/armies/factions woteva. Did yuh know social systems impact play? Truth! Somtimes gud. Often nah gud. Read de papers. Feed yuh mind. Reseach out dere. Addin social systems presentin problem wid no commercially attractive solution atm.

Truth - wi gat groups an gangs/corps/guilds/etc alredi..

Truth - wi nah needin to encourage more wid supportin fi dem growth, in game, wid Frontier-cash-payin development time.

Big Question: How yuh gonna encourage groups/guilds/gangs/corps to be actin wid accountability an social responsibility?

Wat de solution?

Som saying, ''Dat fah Frontier to tink bout! Mi just de source of so so great ideas!''

HA!

Yuh not knowin solution. Frontier nah knowin solution - or rada, dem nah gat time or money to be testin de science.

Addin (actively supportin) social system to competitive multiplayer games be addin problems. Mi not wantin dem to spend money on addin problems. Until som scientist sayin truth how to presentin social systems in dis game dat promote social responsiblity an accountability, den any support of addin social systems be askin fah trouble.

Mi luv lotta people - mi know wat happin wen organised people + anonymity + high pressure enviroment/competitive environment be mixin togeda!

Spoiler: Nat gud!

Frontier know dis - dey usin NPC as buffer. Buffer be effort to save us fram internet negativity. Or yuh tinkin dis setup just fah fun? So much easier dan addin guild system, truth? HA!

(An dis nat even coverin de lack of finality an tings bordem be doin! Bored folks, sittin aroun, armed an reddi - wid anonymity/no accountability??! NAT GUD!!!)

Yuh nat knowin? Read som. Learn som. Drive som!

 

[Dave1235]

I can't believe how members here get so worried about FD implementing something they may not want because of some poll, even a mod is here poo haring the poll because it doesn't show what they want.

Bottom line there is a segment of the playing population who want guilds (and player owned bases which I have no idea how they would work).

Re guilds we have them now just you can't see them in game, we also have have PP guilds which you can belong to. So what would change if you could create guild yourself??

I doubt anyone is concerned about a fixed post, that people admitted fixing, as it has no bearing on the game, I only mentioned it because you used the vote to illustrate a point, the whole point of fixing it in the first place

Oh you got me there good point, I was actually talking about guild owned stations and I pretty sure that your beloved FD wouldn't let guilds create stations in areas where they would become a problem to the average player. Why would they??

I have no reason why you would need a separate guild area, as we only really have one area but you choose to see who you want so if you choose only to see yourself you can still be involved..

"I pretty sure that your beloved FD wouldn't let guilds create stations in areas where they would become a problem to the average player", why would you think that? they haven't relocated the CODE to Sagg A yet have they?

FD have consistently said no to guilds, so weather they are here or not they will have to work within what FD allow, like PP etc.

Why a separate mode? so people can opt in or out of "ED guild wars" and everyone else who doesn't read the forums can go "ooooh guild mode, I want in now / Screw that", basically the same reason I want a PVE choice in the menu, so everyone (not just us) realise all the options this game has to offer rather than blindly wandering in to someone else's war.

 

[david6768]

Who knows.... However the possibility that non-players have voted renders the result of the poll meaningless.

Do you even read what you write? S
So someone that has no interest in the game and doesn't own it will join the ED forums just to vote in a pole. Seriously do you even read yourself what you write! Now if they don't own the game but WOULD own it if the game gad proper multiplayer or guilds or player owned stations then their vote is valid !!!

 

[david6768]

Hey Fire70 have you caught on to the fact that it is only the same 3 or 4 people that are the naysayers to any social tools or guilds or player owned stations ETC. The same 4 people camp these threads and they are the only opposing side to the argument!

 

[Fire70]

Hey Fire70 have you caught on to the fact that it is only the same 3 or 4 people that are the naysayers to any social tools or guilds or player owned stations ETC. The same 4 people camp these threads and they are the only opposing side to the argument!

Yes but it is pretty much the same on most topics here I sort of can understand there would be some push back on player owned stations but given we already have guilds I can't really understand the push back in that..

 

[david6768]

Yes but it is pretty much the same on most topics here I sort of can understand there would be some push back on player owned stations but given we already have guilds I can't really understand the push back in that..

I just figured I would let you know if you hadn't noticed it yet. There is no talking to them ! You can be like well what if we made guilds so that they were this way or that way or whatever to counter a hostile PVP environment!
Reply: no
Well what about if we tried this then?
You misspelled something in you post (attempt to derail and get the thread locked)
No no what about the content I mentioned earlier don't worry about the misspelling
Well misspelled words could confuse everyone and I think that spelling is important to the discussion ( another attempt to derail)
Ok so I fixed the misspelling so what about the content of the above post
The "vision" but the "vision"
A vision is just a plan and plans change
NO NO the vision is the BIBLE and must not change in any way
But they are already implementing player factions and player owned stations
Ad nausium!

But yes I agree, there are already guilds in game and there is no way to prevent them even if they wanted to. After all a guild is just a group of players that play together with common goals in order to help out each other. Man that sounded evil didn't it ? To some I sounded like Satan himself with that guild sentence!

 

[Asp Explorer]

But yes I agree, there are already guilds in game and there is no way to prevent them even if they wanted to. After all a guild is just a group of players that play together with common goals in order to help out each other. Man that sounded evil didn't it ? To some I sounded like Satan himself with that guild sentence!

Please, please, show me even one screenshot of guilds in Elite: Dangerous. I don't mean player-submitted Galnet entries. Just plain evidence of bona-fide Guild existence in Elite.

 

[Mohrgan]

There is a solution. FD has already said there will be an outlet for player groups. Player groups have already started to stake out their places on the star map. Just get your proposal to Zac. You can potentially have a minor faction named for your player group, and have your own place in the galaxy. It's happening. Why doesn't the conversation turn to reality, rather than the bickering? It baffles me.

Next, there will be complaints that 'I can't get the faction I want' because you waited too long. Face reality and get in while the getting's good.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Around these parts we call that a closed mind!

If change is determined to be required, then discuss the scope of the change. Until a change is deemed necessary, there's no need to compromise one's position in opposition to the proposed change.

Do you even read what you write? S
So someone that has no interest in the game and doesn't own it will join the ED forums just to vote in a pole. Seriously do you even read yourself what you write! Now if they don't own the game but WOULD own it if the game gad proper multiplayer or guilds or player owned stations then their vote is valid !!!

These would be the friends and friends of friends that would be only too happy to play the game if it was made more like other games? Potential sales are not guaranteed sales. Some of the proposed changes to the ame would be guaranteed to be divisive and would probably lose players (and, possibly, prospective players too....). One can only guess at the number of players in either group.

Frontier have chosen the path for this game. While they are no doubt keen to sell copies of the game, is it clear that they are prepared to make game design choices (and stick to them in the face of calls for change) that are bound to be unpopular with players with certain expectations and play-styles.