Player interaction

[Merkk]

The only way you can significantly deepen the gameplay without changing everything is by allowing player interaction, such as trading and the creation of in game clans / corporations. / guilds, whatever you want to call them.

Allowing players to trade immediately makes traders and miners connected, instead of being lonesome activities with no interaction from anything / anyone else.

The ability of owning clan/guild based space with player owned stations with the ability of declaring war on others would let people (PVPers mainly) create their own content.

The lack of player interaction is nothing short of staggering and disappointing.

 

[Asp Explorer]

The lack of some players ability to cope with gaming without lame, tired and utterly predictable guildie mechanics is nothing short of staggering, disappointing, and laughable.

 

[Merkk]

The lack of some players ability to cope with gaming without lame, tired and utterly predictable guildie mechanics is nothing short of staggering, disappointing, and laughable.

"I am bitter and you can only play the game the way I want you to, how dare you play something I don't want you to."

ftfy

 

[Asp Explorer]

ftfy

I am bitter and you can only play the game the way I want you to, how dare you play something I don't want you to.

Ask FD for a player faction, give it a nice name - work the BGS - and you can all play in any way you like, in the same way that everyone else plays in the way they like

 

[Merkk]

This is everything there is to hate about this forum.

Propose gameplay changes, be met with toxic closed minded people like you.
I will never be able to wrap my head around such dogmatic behavior and the absolute refusal of gameplay improvements, not only that but you completely ignored the other thing I said.

Grow up.

 

[Asp Explorer]

This is everything there is to hate about this forum.

Propose gameplay changes, be met with toxic closed minded people like you.
I will never be able to wrap my head around such dogmatic behavior and the absolute refusal of gameplay improvements, not only that but you completely ignored the other thing I said.

Grow up.

I'm going to need a bigger lulzbucket

Proposing gameplay changes is one thing, stating that enforcing a particular type of player agency is the "only" way of doing it is simply nonsense.

 

[Galactic Fork]

This is everything there is to hate about this forum.

Propose gameplay changes, be met with toxic closed minded people like you.
I will never be able to wrap my head around such dogmatic behavior and the absolute refusal of gameplay improvements, not only that but you completely ignored the other thing I said.

Grow up.

Is it more dogmatic than you decreeing what you want is a definitive "improvement" and that the game is shallow without it? Not everybody is going to want what you want, and you aren't going to want what others want. But you are the one who is flat out stating that your way is the only best way to do things.

 

[Jaiotu]

The game is called "Elite" not "Harmless". The ability to share the wealth between players would allow many players to leapfrog over the various ranks further diluting an already fragile rank system that literally is what gives this game it's name. New players shouldn't be flying fully-kitted Anaconda's on their first day in-game simply because they were bribed into joining a guild that has a massive shared player-controlled bank.

The entire point of the game is to rise from very humble beginnings (Sidewinder / 1000cr) to the coveted rank of Elite. Short-circuiting that sullies 33 years of Elite's history.

That said ... there are some of your suggestions that have merit. We definitely need more social tools in this game to allow players to work together as a minor faction, guild, cooperative or corporation.

The current model of player driven minor factions is already sufficient to allow players to declare war on other factions by investing sufficient time and effort into the BGS. What we need are ways for players who are allied with a particular minor faction to identify themselves as such and to have a "vote" in that minor faction's next move in a way that is similar to Power Play.

Social tools, such as minor faction "tags" to let allied players better identify each other are much needed along with the ability to sort players in your friend's list into specific groups and send broadcast messages and offline messages to specific groups of players.

Direct sharing of financial resources though? No. The Pilots Federation rankings are already watered down enough.

 

[Jaiotu]

The lack of some players ability to cope with gaming without lame, tired and utterly predictable guildie mechanics is nothing short of staggering, disappointing, and laughable.

Is it really necessary to attack the person instead of address their ideas? It isn't even Vicktore this time

 

[Asp Explorer]

Is it really necessary to attack the person instead of address their ideas? It isn't even Vicktore this time

It's not the person - it's the same old, old, old position made again and again - and it never even changes slightly to make it a bit more interesting

 

[Merkk]

The game is called "Elite" not "Harmless". The ability to share the wealth between players would allow many players to leapfrog over the various ranks further diluting an already fragile rank system that literally is what gives this game it's name. New players shouldn't be flying fully-kitted Anaconda's on their first day in-game simply because they were bribed into joining a guild that has a massive shared player-controlled bank.


The entire point of the game is to rise from very humble beginnings (Sidewinder / 1000cr) to the coveted rank of Elite. Short-circuiting that sullies 33 years of Elite's history.

I can see where you're coming from, however that could be (possibly) be fixed by gating ships behind status requirements, although that would be a hard balance to achieve.

That said ... there are some of your suggestions that have merit. We definitely need more social tools in this game to allow players to work together as a minor faction, guild, cooperative or corporation.
...
Social tools, such as minor faction "tags" to let allied players better identify each other are much needed along with the ability to sort players in your friend's list into specific groups and send broadcast messages and offline messages to specific groups of players.

I feel as if being able to have a tag to represent your crew could make it more enjoyable, it would certainly feel like you are part of something of your own rather than something else's, such as minor factions. I don't see a reason why representing who you fly with would be a detriment to the game.

Also I would have to agree on that second part about sorting friend lists and overall managing our list, it can get cluttered and confusing, maybe you just want to create a group chat with your friends without having to wing up everytime. Could make the game feel less lonely for some players.

The current model of player driven minor factions is already sufficient to allow players to declare war on other factions by investing sufficient time and effort into the BGS. What we need are ways for players who are allied with a particular minor faction to identify themselves as such and to have a "vote" in that minor faction's next move in a way that is similar to Power Play.

I somewhat agree with this. Personally, this feels more like you are doing the work for the faction, more so than you are doing it for personal gain / desire / conviction.

Direct sharing of financial resources though? No. The Pilots Federation rankings are already watered down enough.

Fair enough.

 

[Jaiotu]

Is it more dogmatic than you decreeing what you want is a definitive "improvement" and that the game is shallow without it? Not everybody is going to want what you want, and you aren't going to want what others want. But you are the one who is flat out stating that your way is the only best way to do things.

Isn't that the point of this sub forum? To suggest improvements to gameplay? Of course not every suggestion is going appeal to everyone on the same level or even at all. People have valid concerns with a player group becoming too powerful via guild-like game play mechanics. You should take the time to explain why the suggested mechanics don't appeal to you and how you think they would effect the game in ways that the OP might not have considered.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Isn't that the point of this sub forum? To suggest improvements to gameplay?

I'd agree there. FD have stated that core gameplay mechanics will be looked at quite soon, and it's entirely possible that "guilds" or groups of players sharing nametags and a "chat" could be implemented as a QoL feature for those groups that request them.

Trading mechanics may change. Bounty hunting and / or Piracy may chance. Exploration may change. It's all up to FD and hopefully suggestions from the player base to come up with things to keep people happy and playing.

What I do not want to see, and will actively oppose, is absolutely any form of "guildiness" be a requirement to access gameplay features or content.

 

[Jaiotu]

It's not the person - it's the same old, old, old position made again and again - and it never even changes slightly to make it a bit more interesting

Sure ... but for the benefit of someone who hasn't been in on one of the hundreds of conversations on the subject maybe explaining your position would be a better use of everyone's time rather then starting the conversation off on a hostile footing.

Me? I've got my talking points ready every time this topic comes up. I want faction tags (that are managed by game mechanics and not individual team leaders), better tools to manage your friends list and online/offline group messaging. I don't want "fleet banks". I'm ambivalent toward player "owned" major assets like megaships or stations if such ownership can be used to lock other players out of participating in specific activities.

 

[Merkk]

I'm ambivalent toward player "owned" major assets like megaships or stations if such ownership can be used to lock other players out of participating in specific activities.

That is not the point of what I would mean by that.
Locking out players is not the end goal I want to see with this, more so about having discounts or be able to manufacture equipment / ammo / badges to put on your ship, which in turn could tie in with miners and traders.
There's a lot of options you can open up by letting players do something on their own, and this is only scratching the surface of a "taboo" topic in the ED community.

Edit: being able to set a specific station as your respawn point as opposed to the last station you were in could also be a benefit.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Edit: being able to set a specific station as your respawn point as opposed to the last station you were in could also be a benefit.

And utterly exploitable.

 

[Galactic Fork]

1)Isn't that the point of this sub forum? To suggest improvements to gameplay? 2)Of course not every suggestion is going appeal to everyone on the same level or even at all. 3)People have valid concerns with a player group becoming too powerful via guild-like game play mechanics. You should take the time to explain why the suggested mechanics don't appeal to you and how you think they would effect the game in ways that the OP might not have considered.

1) Yes! That is exactly the purpose!
2) Yes, I even stated that in the part you quoted.
3) The OP made it clear they were correct and all alternatives were wrong and the game was shallow without what they want. Full stop. Which brings us back to 1) and 2). Nothing the OP said suggested they wanted a conversation. They were right. Anybody who wants otherwise is wrong. So my post was more of a reminder to the pot about what they're calling the kettle.

 

[Jaiotu]

That is not the point of what I would mean by that.
Locking out players is not the end goal I want to see with this, more so about having discounts or be able to manufacture equipment / ammo / badges to put on your ship, which in turn could tie in with miners and traders.
There's a lot of options you can open up by letting players do something on their own, and this is only scratching the surface of a "taboo" topic in the ED community.

Edit: being able to set a specific station as your respawn point as opposed to the last station you were in could also be a benefit.

Honestly I think that we should be given a discount on prices at any station that we're "allied" with. Even if it's just a discount on repair/refuel/rearm.

Respawning at a specific station just because you're a "member"? It would have to be totally optional and not the default. I can imagine a lot of sorrow if someone flew 1,000 light-years to participate in a CG and found themselves respawning "back home" instead of at the system hosting the CG.

 

[Merkk]

1) Yes! That is exactly the purpose!
2) Yes, I even stated that in the part you quoted.
3) The OP made it clear they were correct and all alternatives were wrong and the game was shallow without what they want. Full stop. Which brings us back to 1) and 2). Nothing the OP said suggested they wanted a conversation. They were right. Anybody who wants otherwise is wrong. So my post was more of a reminder to the pot about what they're calling the kettle.

Cool to know you can read my mind, I possibly couldn't have meant "In my opinion this is how to fix and make things better".
You are wrong to assume what I meant was "I have the absolute truth and you can all sod off because I know better than you." Why are you so much on the defensive and ready to be toxic at the first opportunity?

Never presume.

Honestly I think that we should be given a discount on prices at any station that we're "allied" with. Even if it's just a discount on repair/refuel/rearm.

Respawning at a specific station just because you're a "member"? It would have to be totally optional and not the default. I can imagine a lot of sorrow if someone flew 1,000 light-years to participate in a CG and found themselves respawning "back home" instead of at the system hosting the CG.

Of course I mean it as an option.

And utterly exploitable.

Everything can be exploited, that is not a reason why it should not be considered. See the amounts of endless exploits people have already made with the game only regarding credits.

 

[Jaiotu]

1)3) The OP made it clear they were correct and all alternatives were wrong and the game was shallow without what they want. Full stop. Which brings us back to 1) and 2). Nothing the OP said suggested they wanted a conversation. They were right. Anybody who wants otherwise is wrong. So my post was more of a reminder to the pot about what they're calling the kettle.

True ... but technically this is a suggestion and feedback forum not a discussion forum. Most of my submissions to this particular subforum don't solicit any comments from anyone. It's only when someone suggests something "controversial" that a conversation erupts

I'm not sure if there is anything more controversial then fleet mechanics and guilds (especially when the poster has a distinctly Eve-like avatar). So ... here we are, having this conversation again