DEVS: Why no social features like chat channels, guilds / corps and parties?

[Dejay]

The point is, the group thingy is currently useless. If you want to play singleplayer, fine by me, but we want normal multiplayer features.

Well we have to wait how and if new "group / party" features are added and how well they work.

Currently only bounty hunting (murdering) and pirating could easily be made multiplayer. But a large part for me would be to follow missions generated by the stations / factions / ingame events. Something like an escort mission that is meant for 4 players that requires coordination, e.g. 2 stay with the ship that needs protection, 2 others try to head off an ambush.

The game has the POTENTIAL to generate an incredibly awesome content for multiplayers. A quantum leap ahead of previous MMO games that only feature static content. Missions that are tailored for the group you are in and you don't need a specific combination of roles for etc. Multiplayer missions that actually take into account the collective actions of the group. Without procedural generation the outcome of a mission doesn't have to be fixed - the system can react to individual choice unlike static "hand made" content.

Imagine a multiplayer mission where each of the team mates has the option to betray the others. That could be hilarious!

 

[CeskySkilla]

Well we have to wait how and if new "group / party" features are added and how well they work.

Currently only bounty hunting (murdering) and pirating could easily be made multiplayer. But a large part for me would be to follow missions generated by the stations / factions / ingame events. Something like an escort mission that is meant for 4 players that requires coordination, e.g. 2 stay with the ship that needs protection, 2 others try to head off an ambush.

The game has the POTENTIAL to generate an incredibly awesome content for multiplayers. A quantum leap ahead of previous MMO games that only feature static content. Missions that are tailored for the group you are in and you don't need a specific combination of roles for etc. Multiplayer missions that actually take into account the collective actions of the group. Without procedural generation the outcome of a mission doesn't have to be fixed - the system can react to individual choice unlike static "hand made" content.

Imagine a multiplayer mission where each of the team mates has the option to betray the others. That could be hilarious!

There is a potential for a lot of awesome features, but it is being wasted.

 

[Daeron]

Well nobody knows how these injected political events will work exactly, but it is clearly aimed at multiplayer. DB underlines cooperation of large groups. Otherwise you could have used the same system in an offline game. This is not a single player game and it would be very boring if all we can do is "vote" on a specific conflict but not really interact with each other. It would make for very poor gameplay.

This "forces" you into a group in the sense that if you want to achieve a gameplay goal you have set yourself, you can do so better in a group.

I agree completely that it is hard to compete for a numerical advantage, when you have merely one person running the show. So it is very obviously meant for more than one user. Your group dependency theories could (probably) use some (optional) exploratory delving into what material we have been given though. ( Dev diaries. )

As for "voting" on the content, it is a little more than that, given that you have to perform tasks that can fail for example. Like going after a target, or smuggle something. or transport passengers with the chance of an ambush. There is variation, but you have to go with the flow of the setting. Call it "mood". Which some of these ideas in my humble opinion is not trying very hard to achieve, when asking for channels here and there, and everywhere.

This game is more a hybrid of several concepts, so you can't slap anything in there, based on other games. There *are* technical limitations, and there are environmental considerations you have to take into account. Universal space spam is probably the best way to kill the mood of the game. And turning it off is not making the mood better for the rest. Not that I expect any better response on that one, but it is what it is.

I do agree that group functionality must be supported up to the limits of what is reasonable, but it must not turn into some wishful fantasy based on external expectations.

I have argued for a faction wide "channel" in the past though, if memory serves. For very selfish reasons of course. It is probably the wrong thing to wish for, especially since it goes against my own argumentation in places, and might not even be technically viable in this format. We are creatures of many desires, and strange cravings. Or else what would there be to talk about in this place. Space weather, and solar winds most likely. On the most immediate level of contact between players, some of our strange desires might converge, at least in part.

The discussion is not without merit, but the implementation needs adjustment, to conform to the material at hand. You need to dive into the mood of Elite, more conditioning to the future past is needed!

 

[SuperGhostMaster]

We could argue all day that "[insert feature] is sufficient" for a *substitute* for traditional MMO features, but at the end of the day there's plenty of evidence from many, many, many other MMOs to show that these features exist out of necessity in order to properly fuse the world in which the game is played to the social aspect.

But what is ignored by all people saying these features are not needed is that they are *INHERENT* to multiplayer games. Without them, we're all just playing the same game, SOLO but online at the same time and place as other players. That is NOT a multiplayer game. It's a single-player, online game. These are not one in the same.

Imagine for a moment we all went to our jobs each day, we all did our assigned tasks but we could not speak with one another. Would we really accomplish the same things? No. Absolutely not.


To call this a multiplayer game without having any of the multiplayer prerequisites is simply wrong, by definition. What purpose is there to being online with no connection to other players?

 

[Dejay]

The discussion is not without merit, but the implementation needs adjustment, to conform to the material at hand. You need to dive into the mood of Elite, more conditioning to the future past is needed!

Sure I don't think anyone just wants the same-old-same-old. But ED also is a sandbox game and you need some basic tools. Guilds are basically just moderated chat channels to help groups organize and create their own gameplay. I don't really see a way to do this basic stuff that helps players communicate within the game much differently. You can argue about message boards or ingame forums but the first step to enable communities are chat channels.

I would love to see a clever design to link guilds / wings to factions or especially sub-factions, or somehow link them to the game world. But I see that as the second step since that would involve something like "owning" a station or something or special gameplay elements or something. In the meantime guilds can roleplay or "pretend" to be a subfaction of the federation that wants less banking regulations or something A better example might be a subfaction of the federation that wants less expansionist politics and are against the annexation of the eriani system for example, so they fight against the black ops that try to overthrow the eriani communist government.

 

[Druid]

Slight speculation i agree but group wide comms was just brought in and previous patch notes mentioned wingmen etc...

I'd say its pretty obvious this aspect is being worked on.

Personally i don't understand or feel any need for group missions.

I play with a group or friend every time i play and we have a fun time helping each other out, if i'm going to do something like kill a wanted NPC anaconda we do it together no need for FD to hold my hand and make it a group mission i just do it with a friend

Same with exploring bounty hunting etc it can be done as a group and works fine.

And when your mate kills the NPC and its your mission you get nothing and you have to find the NPC again and tell your mate not to kill it. Very multiplayer friendly.

 

[Hawkmoon]

I understand what you're saying but they chose to implement online in this odd way that apparently precludes both solo offline and MMO modes. So we're back with two variants of solo online with the second one being where you can get shot at by real people. It's reasonably fun but hardly justifies all the trumpet blowing about the awesomely rich online experience. There's little or indeed nothing that couldn't be done with a bit of code.

SO where did FD ever say it was going to be anything different from what we have?

 

[Dejay]

SO where did FD ever say it was going to be anything different from what we have?

We are discussing what we think is needed in the game and why and how, not what FD said DB said.

 

[SuperGhostMaster]

SO where did FD ever say it was going to be anything different from what we have?

Please read all 50+ newsletters like the rest of us have.

 

[Hawkmoon]

Exactly the point! Where is the intent? I would love to see where FD wants to take multiplayer. I mainly would love to know how will we cooperate when doing missions and how coop missions will work. Shared bounty hunting, better coop play for pirates etc.

And how will communities in the game be supported with tools. For an MMO communities are everything. Even if I'm not in a guild, these guilds add a certain social landscape to the game. Will I be able to see in what subfaction a certain player I meet is?

I think you need to go back and read the initial details that were put out, the whole ethos behind ED is of one person doing what they can against a hostile galaxy, where everyone else is out to steal from you, cheat you or just outright kill you. There is no real reason to be in a group other than feeling lonely out there in the big deep black. There are many games out there based around group play and guilds but this is not one of them.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

We are discussing what we think is needed in the game and why and how, not what FD said DB said.

Kinda of like buying a can of beans and then saying that they need some meatballs in them, maybe you bought the wrong tin?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Please read all 50+ newsletters like the rest of us have.

I have been reading them and FD have said that they will look to implement some extra group features that were not in the initial features list but you have to expect them to come after all the initial stuff.

 

[Dejay]

I think you need to go back and read the initial details that were put out, the whole ethos behind ED is of one person doing what they can against a hostile galaxy, where everyone else is out to steal from you, cheat you or just outright kill you. There is no real reason to be in a group other than feeling lonely out there in the big deep black. There are many games out there based around group play and guilds but this is not one of them.

Well this is obviously false if you read anything DB said recently or the statements on the about page of elite. Multiplayer, massively multiplayer, shared galaxy. It makes no sense to keep players from playing together. In any case your argument is an "appeal to authority" - it doesn't matter for the discussion that the king declared this or that.

 

[Dejay]

Kinda of like buying a can of beans and then saying that they need some meatballs in them, maybe you bought the wrong tin?

I would rather compare this to buying a can of beans and then finding out it's only half full. Massive multiplayer features were part of the game description from the start. And now we don't even get single player offline mode. So DB disagrees with you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would rather compare this to buying a can of beans and then finding out it's only half full. Massive multiplayer features were part of the game description from the start. And now we don't even get single player offline mode. So DB disagrees with you.

The game is described as massively multi-player online. It mentions no guild features. I do not expect that Frontier's take on the MMO aspects will conform to the cookie-cutter guild features / content / raids / etc. of other games.

 

[Chazzie]

For me the problem does not lay with just these features but rather what it leads too.

Say you had your wish and every feature you wanted was added, possibly the next day it would be - 'DEVS why can't we own stations' or 'DEVS why can't we control large sections of space!'.
The thing is before long you have a totally different game that the early backers did not ask for or even want, let alone fit in the games fiction. There are already two amazing space games that are going to have all you have asked for and more (EvE and Star Citizen) why does Elite Dangerous have to be another?

Being a long time player of EvE and a backer of Star Citizen, I've seen first hand what happens to games when guilds get out of control, and while I'm sure it's amazing fun for the guilds involved (Goonswarm for example) it's not for the rest of us.
The joke is I'm actually not against a majority of your recommendations, but I am against guilds and really don't want to see that feature added, despite being a member of guilds in several other games.

Another example is also if FD decide to add missions that are impossible to complete solo - what good then is solo mode? It would not do just to say 'play solo then.' as you are then missing out on content and other rewards.

 

[Daeron]

It is described as a MMO, but networking limitations apply. Some open ended in-game tools to help grouping, a limited number of channels at best, and external webpages will have to handle "guilds", that is my gut feeling. On the positive side, we should now have no more cats in the bag...

*Atchoo*

 

[philux]

@OP: I fully agree with you. However, we had that discussion numerous times in the past and every time the conclusion was that DB, FDEV and a vocal part of the community are against tools typical for MMOs to support more socializing and organisation since they fear for getting repeatedly ganked by groups of players. That paranoia runs very deep here.

My personal conclusion is that, approach it as a single-player game w/ some background data exchanged online and let the consumer market decide at the end of the day.
Besides, there is still Star Citizen for that playstyle which is fundamentally based on clans, their alliances and rivalries.

 

[Dejay]

The game is described as massively multi-player online. It mentions no guild features. I do not expect that Frontier's take on the MMO aspects will conform to the cookie-cutter guild features / content / raids / etc. of other games.

Again it does not matter what authority X says. Make an argument that has merit in and of itself like "guilds are bad because...".

 

[Druid]

We already have a gank free game its solo online. I dont need guilds but I would like basic functions to enjoy the game with mates.

 

[Avetorian]

For me the problem does not lay with just these features but rather what it leads too.

Say you had your wish and every feature you wanted was added, possibly the next day it would be - 'DEVS why can't we own stations' or 'DEVS why can't we control large sections of space!'.
The thing is before long you have a totally different game that the early backers did not ask for or even want, let alone fit in the games fiction. There are already two amazing space games that are going to have all you have asked for and more (EvE and Star Citizen) why does Elite Dangerous have to be another?

Being a long time player of EvE and a backer of Star Citizen, I've seen first hand what happens to games when guilds get out of control, and while I'm sure it's amazing fun for the guilds involved (Goonswarm for example) it's not for the rest of us.
The joke is I'm actually not against a majority of your recommendations, but I am against guilds and really don't want to see that feature added, despite being a member of guilds in several other games.

Another example is also if FD decide to add missions that are impossible to complete solo - what good then is solo mode? It would not do just to say 'play solo then.' as you are then missing out on content and other rewards.

Look, we have private groups, and solo play for those people who are so worried about what guild's or clans do to a game. These features should be added, just because you had bad experiences in the past with them, or other games had, does not make them a bad feature. EVE has great clan/guild functionality, Star Citizen will have it too. Why? Because it is a persistent online universe, where even in the news/letters, developer presentaitons, DDFS etc the players are encouraged to work together. Yet we do not have the tools to make a squad and be informed as to where our members are, share bounties, loot, hunt as a team. etc

Gamma is out now, and I'm really really getting concerned about this.

 

[Dejay]

@OP: I fully agree with you. However, we had that discussion numerous times in the past and every time the conclusion was that DB, FDEV and a vocal part of the community are against tools typical for MMOs to support more socializing and organisation since they fear for getting repeatedly ganked by groups of players. That paranoia runs very deep here.

Yes we have lol. Still the irrational fear or "slippery slope" fallacy is not a valid argument. Judging from the posts here actually the majority of players want some sort of social tool or other. It has always been a vocal minority and the oldschool backers who want to "spoil" the fun of different minded players. Sooner or later FD will see this, hopefully not too late.