If you are suggesting that players who prefer to play Solo should have to go and find another game to play if you get your Open Only way, I can quite confidently say that isn't going to happen. What is going to happen is that certain player groups will get the absolute snot lulzzbanned out of them by certain disgruntled players for lulz. That isn't going to be pretty for anyone - so let's not let that happen.
Serious discussion on proper fleet mechanics
- Thread starter Vicktore Beskor
- Start date
If you are suggesting that players who prefer to play Solo should have to go and find another game to play if you get your Open Only way, I can quite confidently say that isn't going to happen. What is going to happen is that certain player groups will get the absolute snot lulzzbanned out of them by certain disgruntled players for lulz. That isn't going to be pretty for anyone - so let's not let that happen.
1-I am only giving back the answer I always receive "if you don't like it leave"
2- nothing I have suggested gives anyone new abilities to grief other commanders. That already happens in game without PMF.
Why is it a poor argument? If it doesn't fit - it doesn't fit. Seems like an accurate and strong argument to me.
It's more of a sandbox than an MMO, despite the marketing speak, really.
Perhaps FDEV realise that if they made its appeal too broad it would dilute the game so much it would no longer be a member of the Elite series of games, it would be something not-Elite.
And we've just had a massive influx of new players, all without guild mechanics.
Again, solo/group/open are just differing levels of client connectivity under the one, same game. Also, the game already presents a huge amount of opportunities for those who enjoy playing elite together. Heck, I enjoy playing the game with others - don't let that exploration stuff of mine fool you - I've had my adventures B)
Ah this right here is the crux of your argument - "Elite should be guild-oriented and those who don't want it can naff off to some other game". What you've just said above has exposed your real motives.
You can't say two entirely contradicting sentences and expect to get away with that
You say you're already a leader of some group of players - seems you can do that just fine and dandy right now, without any in-game mechanics. Problem solved.
Regards.
Have you considered the possible reasons why demands similar to yours consistently receive the same answer?
I spend 95% of my time in-game playing as a "lone wolf" explorer. Thanks to time constraints and an odd work schedule I spend very little time in-game directly interacting with other players even though I play in open 100% of the time.
That other 5% though is spent working in team-oriented activities: generally running missions in an effort to effect the BGS. I would probably spend more time in cooperative game play if Frontier added a few simple tools to make social play more attractive.
Adding "group containers" to our friends list would be a huge plus that wouldn't just benefit players who are members of a PMF. I just made a new friend out here in the Colonia nebula ... a Commander aligned to an Imperial power play faction. While out here in the depth of space I want to work closely with these new friends to build the new colony but when I get back to the Bubble that Commander would be an enemy and a potential target. I'd love to be able to categorize my friends list and even show/hide certain categories depending on what I'm doing. I'd also like to toggle my visibility with certain groups of friends. I don't need my Imperial friends seeing me in open undermining an imperial system.
Minor Faction tags would also be a big plus. I've discussed numerous times in this thread how tags could be implemented without requiring players to administer these groups. Simply create a pledge mechanic that operates based on in-game reputation. As long as you stay allied with a minor faction (player or NPC) then you can fly with that faction's tag and receive perks (such as lowered repair/refuel costs) in that faction's stations and increased tolerance by system defense forces for accidental friendly fire.
Leaving off-line messages for members of our friends list or entire groups of friends (using the group container's suggestion above) would be another nice feature.
None of these features require "giving away the game" to large groups. They benefit everyone and would help attract players who are interested in a more social experience then what is currently available in-game.
That other 5% though is spent working in team-oriented activities: generally running missions in an effort to effect the BGS. I would probably spend more time in cooperative game play if Frontier added a few simple tools to make social play more attractive.
Adding "group containers" to our friends list would be a huge plus that wouldn't just benefit players who are members of a PMF. I just made a new friend out here in the Colonia nebula ... a Commander aligned to an Imperial power play faction. While out here in the depth of space I want to work closely with these new friends to build the new colony but when I get back to the Bubble that Commander would be an enemy and a potential target. I'd love to be able to categorize my friends list and even show/hide certain categories depending on what I'm doing. I'd also like to toggle my visibility with certain groups of friends. I don't need my Imperial friends seeing me in open undermining an imperial system.
Minor Faction tags would also be a big plus. I've discussed numerous times in this thread how tags could be implemented without requiring players to administer these groups. Simply create a pledge mechanic that operates based on in-game reputation. As long as you stay allied with a minor faction (player or NPC) then you can fly with that faction's tag and receive perks (such as lowered repair/refuel costs) in that faction's stations and increased tolerance by system defense forces for accidental friendly fire.
Leaving off-line messages for members of our friends list or entire groups of friends (using the group container's suggestion above) would be another nice feature.
None of these features require "giving away the game" to large groups. They benefit everyone and would help attract players who are interested in a more social experience then what is currently available in-game.
Last edited:
There are many features that have mass acceptance in these threads. Comm's, Tags, Rosters. They are all generally considered to be good ideas. The trouble starts when the issue expands to station, systems, ownership, and control of Factions. If we could come to an agreement to petition FD to bring on the features we have consensus on, something might get done. But, it always becomes, ok now we have to get....
The trouble arises when the current system of Player Groups is disregarded as inadequate, and we get calls for the system to be scrapped, or duplicated with the trite and over common approach to Clans/Guilds/Cults. Get a cohesive list of features, and solid justifications for them, where they cam be pinned down and addressed, and progress could be made. Pie is the sky fantasies, that have no connection to the path FD has already chosen only cause contention and the 'round and 'round discussions we seem destined to have.
Solo is a major feature of this game. It is equal to Open and Private Group. To say if you want a solo experience go elsewhere is absurd...
It really doesn't help your arguments Viktor.
To say if you want guilds/corps, go play something else that has that as a major feature of gameplay has some semblance of an argument.
Why? Because there are no Guild/Corporation features in the game. And FD don't seem to be intent on developing the game further in that direction.
I think this will only change if FD adopts a subscription model to pay for servers, and follow the kind of infrastructure Eve Online has.
It really doesn't help your arguments Viktor.
To say if you want guilds/corps, go play something else that has that as a major feature of gameplay has some semblance of an argument.
Why? Because there are no Guild/Corporation features in the game. And FD don't seem to be intent on developing the game further in that direction.
I think this will only change if FD adopts a subscription model to pay for servers, and follow the kind of infrastructure Eve Online has.
If only I could make a monetised youredfacewitchtube channel for the Guild of Lulzbanned Guildies, I'd make a fortune!!!
Now these I could get behind!
You should take over management of this thread tbh - you articulate your ideas better than the other fella.
Great! So far I've seen plenty of positive reaction to the ideas of managing friends lists, some form of faction tag and offline messaging. Wonderful! Three things most of us can agree on.
So lets talk about one of Victore's more controversial suggestions: resource sharing.
What are the Pros and Cons? Is there enough negative about resource sharing to outweigh any possible positive benefit?
I know that resource sharing already happens in Elite: Dangerous. Certain groups have demonstrated trading rare commodities in bulk with small ships purchasing the commodity at a station, ferrying the cargo to a larger trading vessel which then grabs the cargo via collector limpets.
I'm against the idea of using a "fleet bank" for me personally because I want to "earn" my Elite wings through my own effort but I really don't want to force my vision of Elite on anyone else.
Aside from the simple fact that many of us just find the idea personally distasteful, what would be the real impact of allowing player groups an easier method of sharing resources?
This is exactly my complaint. We get a consensus about some core features, and instantly, we get 'what's next?'. The game offers one way to share resources; Drop and Scoop. Giving a joined up player a quick way to advance is a non-starter. Each Commander should have to make their own way in the game. Being in a Player Group should offer no advantages beyond a social connection. Anything else offers an unfair opportunity for a Faction to progress, not to mention an individual player.
Well, I'm not really going for a "what next" kind of idea. Just trying to get a real discussion about one of Vicktore's more controversial ideas.
The advantage of "Drop and Scoop" seems to be that it requires and investment of time. I tried giving my son a boost via this method shortly after the game was released "live" to the world and it was terribly tedious to the point of not being worth the effort. Easier to earn the credits via actually playing the game.
Do you think that shared resources would circumvent necessary elements of game play that every player should have to experience on their journey to Elite? Is there some sort of middle ground compromise solution or is this just a complete non-starter?
Yes, agreed on better friends lists, tagging through pledging to minor factions and better messaging.
Not sure about resource transfer - I'll wait until there are some pros and cons put forward until I make up my mind about that.
I am also against the idea of a "fleet bank" - I've also played the other popular spaceship MMO and did terrible things to naive corps!
I think the advantages of advice, and support is enough. Yes, I think boosting players rob those boosted of the game's full experience. And it would allow a rich Cult to increase their influence unduly by attracting players with the enticement of fast progress, and the added capability that Commander didn't earn.
By carrying on with the more contentious suggestions, you just perpetuate the circular discussion, keeping any potential popular changes from gaining traction. Give an inch, they want a mile is all I can think when it just continues to happen over and over again.
I'm assuming that by "other popular spaceship MMO" you mean Eve Online. I've never played it. What were the negative aspects of having a "Fleet Bank" in EVE? Is there any way that a "Fleet Bank" could be implemented in a way that would avoid those negatives? In general when this topic has been raised I've always heard the argument that Elite isn't EVE ... which is fine but for those of us who have never played EVE or followed that game to any degree that doesn't make for much of an argument. I can imagine scenarios where a "Fleet Bank" could be negative but, for me, its all theoretical.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Personally I think it is important not only to discuss the suggestions that are easily agreed on but to discuss the contentious ones reasonably. Why?
Its easy to say "NO FLEET BANK! This isn't Eve" but, as mentioned, Eve means nothing to me personally.
Explaining that you don't want a fleet bank because it would allow a group to increase it's power base artificially by essentially bribing new members to join based on an easy rewards system gives me something tangible to think about ... and that's why I think it's important to discuss the idea and not just dismiss it off-hand.
Last edited:
So a fleet bank robs new players of essential game play and potentially creates a behemoth organization that fills its ranks with players seeking easy access to credits. I guess the main fear is that these players, now beholden to this beast organization could potential run roughshod over the rest of the unsuspecting player base? Any kind of middle ground solution? Or is wing trading dividends or wing bounty sharing "enough" (or even too much)?
Why not spend the energy discussing how the 'accepted' features might work in the current Player Faction system? Wouldn't more be accomplished by working on the middle ground we have already found, rather than hoping to tag on more features? Why is resource sharing important to you and/or your Group?
It isn't important to me. Its simply important to me that it be discussed and, if dismissed, then dismissed for logical reasons.
I totally agree that the "accepted" features should take precedence. Heck, we should even start a thread in the "Suggestions and Feedback" subforum: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/76-Suggestions-amp-Feedback just suggesting those features that we can agree on.
In the meantime there is no harm discussing the controversial suggestions reasonably without taking those features to the suggestion and feedback forum unless a happy medium can be found that seems to address the community's misgivings.
Maybe a discussion on the philosophy behind what would be popular features would be better? What does the EDF see as the goals of the Player Group mechanic? Are the goals Social, Economic, or just plain galactic dominance?
Personally, I think the goals should be strictly Social. That would ensure that those that don't join a Cult won't miss out on improved advancement, or be excluded from content.
Personally, I think the goals should be strictly Social. That would ensure that those that don't join a Cult won't miss out on improved advancement, or be excluded from content.
I think EDF's main goal is mainly social. None of the ideas discusses would be exclusive to EDF so "galactic dominance" is certainly not the "end game" of having this discussion. There are certainly groups out there that are bigger then us that would benefit equally, if not more, then they would EDF.
Since there has been generally decent support to the ideas of Minor Faction Tags, a system of managing our friends list and offline messaging I'm going to post a thread on the suggestions sub forum. Folks who like those ideas can help champion them there and we can continue to use this thread to discuss why or why not some of these other ideas are or aren't viable.