General discussion thread for the merits of groups

[Mobius]

reading what wolf has said and picking up on the single player games with added multiplayer, it shows that there are two camps. those who like the open combat and those who don't. the thing is if I want do some pvp its on equal footing, ill start up Team fortress 2 or Quake online or if I want some sedate pvp ill start up supreme commander or Sins of a solar empire, the thing with these pvp games is that players are entering a game on equal footings, both are in it for the combat and to dominate the other player, but Elite is a little different, how can someone who wants to play as a miner or a trader have equal footing as someone who wants to play as a pirate or a bounty hunter. there are plenty of MMORPG games out there that focus on PvE, guild wars would be a good example. even EVE online has a PvE area better known as secure space, if you want pvp you go into 0.0 space.
having a private PvE group in Elite is no different.
no matter how strong the evidence is for getting everyone into the all group you will always have players who are not interested in the PvP.

at the end of the day if a few thousand players want to play Elite as a PvE game, your not going to miss them in the all group because they will simply play elite as a solo game or offline.

 

[Cosmos]

This sentiment is what always puzzles me. You might not mean it that way, but to me it sounds like a PvE player is taking something away from a PvP player if he does not want to play with him. Or to use a stronger wording, a PvP player has some kind of right to access every other player online, even if some of those players do not want to play with him at the moment.
Again, you might not mean it that way and have not said so, but others have used the term "content" when talking about players. I, for one, do not like to be considered mere content.

Spoiler

I see a big chance of Elite: Dangerous bringing many players into online multiplayer gaming that have never played online before. And it might do so because of the grouping system it offers.
I know many gamers in my personal surrounding who have never even tried online play before. In fact they are the majority of gamers I know. They stay clear of online play out of different reasons, limited time for example, but mostly it comes down to fear. Fear of getting their game spoiled, fear of getting harrased or humiliated. Most play games to have fun () and relax and just the thought of a total stranger entering their session and doing something spoiling that fun, puts them of even considering going MO.
Elite: Dangerous now gives them exactly what could make them try online: chosing with whom you play! Or even play alone, but still online and see the galaxy evolving. That may tempt them to go into open play at a later date, when they feel more confident with the game.
Or not, and it does not matter, and that is my point: Nobody loses by the grouping system. The player not wanting to play open for all would not play in open for all anyway, even if it was the only option. He would play offline or not at all.
Sales numbers of pure single player games against pure MO games also strongly suggest that preference of the big mass of gamers. Also online statistics of mixed games (Single player campaign + online mode) say the same: Millions buy the game, maybe 10% play the online part regularly (which are still a lot of people and it is profitable, but we are talking about potential here)

So my point being: No matter how many players decide not to play in open for all, there would not be more players in it if it was the only option.
Or to use stronger words, not meaning anybody in particular, and not to be taken out of context, please (!) : Nobody can force me to play with him if I don't want to. Elite: Dangerous serves both sides of that scale by offering this "how many people and who do I want to meet?" option.
And there will always be tens or hundreds of thousands of players in open for all regularly, don't worry. I might have a go once in a while, who knows

Well hopefully things will work out re the group system. At the moment all we can do is speculate but I do hope players will try out the Open group once we have a good reason to co-op with each other, and I am genuinely looking forward to making new friends in my adventures out there in the galaxy.

 

[JeffRyan]

Now hopefully this isn't going out the bounds of forum rules but I've seen you many times in game during development and shot at you once (in beta 2 I think) - when you had a bounty on you outside a station. I didn't kill you, stopped, sent a msg and asked for a friend request - which was rejected (as is your prerogative) and fair enough. But it would seem even playing within the ethic of the game wasn't well received.

But best wishes for the group and all its members.



It strikes me people are allowing themselves to get upset by a minority of some who revel in others misery and troll the forums. In my kill count of ~900 ships 10% have been players (during testing). Ironically, I generally go out of my way to say hi to people - 99.9% completely ignore anything of a friendly nature.

.

Not saying I disagree with you, but perception is an issue.

 

[Cosmos]

Not saying I disagree with you, but perception is an issue.

reading what wolf has said and picking up on the single player games with added multiplayer, it shows that there are two camps. those who like the open combat and those who don't. the thing is if I want do some pvp its on equal footing, ill start up Team fortress 2 or Quake online or if I want some sedate pvp ill start up supreme commander or Sins of a solar empire, the thing with these pvp games is that players are entering a game on equal footings, both are in it for the combat and to dominate the other player, but Elite is a little different, how can someone who wants to play as a miner or a trader have equal footing as someone who wants to play as a pirate or a bounty hunter. there are plenty of MMORPG games out there that focus on PvE, guild wars would be a good example. even EVE online has a PvE area better known as secure space, if you want pvp you go into 0.0 space.
having a private PvE group in Elite is no different.
no matter how strong the evidence is for getting everyone into the all group you will always have players who are not interested in the PvP.

at the end of the day if a few thousand players want to play Elite as a PvE game, your not going to miss them in the all group because they will simply play elite as a solo game or offline.

My problem here is that there is a perception that all the Open group is about, is PvP. It should be far more than that but as I have stated ad infinitum over the years we, as a group of players, dont have reason to play together. That surely is a bit of an over sight which will hopefully be addressed moving forward.

 

[Mobius]

My problem here is that there is a perception that all the Open group is about, is PvP.

and your right, it is a perception, I play in the open group 40% of the time and haven't had any issues with PvP, but when you have various groups openly advertising how they are going to interact with other players in the all group in a negative way, you cant help but not want to be part of the all group when you have players like that.

 

[MJC]

"Spaceways aren`t safe ways"

Hello everyone,

this is my first ever post on frontier forums. The reason I have decided to get involved in this discussion is because I feel very passionate about Elite. I played it on ZX Spectrum, C64, and then on Amiga (Frontier and First Encounters too). You could call me a veteran I suppose.
To cut the long story short I'm 100% for guilds groups interaction and pvp. I am a bit concerned having read this forum about the opposition coming from a handful of people to anything to do with pvp and interaction. In their need to remain in their protected little bubbles they are actively campaigning to deny the rest of us the right to have groups/alliances/guilds and pvp. This I find undemocratic. Why ? Because solo mode is already there for people who dont like interaction or pvp. I love the adrenalin and the fear factor of knowing that an anaconda might interdict me in anarchy system and blow me up. After all anarchy systems are anarchic. If I was concerned, under-equipped or frightened I would not go there in the first place. Or I may take a chance and do a "Han Solo" run through an anarchy system hoping for the best. That is part of the excitement. Equally, I could activate my FSD as soon as I saw the supposed anaconda and escape. Or I may try and take it on. The exhilaration one feels after a successful battle, escape or just interacting with a "real-life" player in the depths of space can never be understood by people who are against it. It is their right to play solo or to avoid anarchy systems if they play open. It is my right to remain social with all the benefits of dangers this may bring. Humans have evolved as social beings - this is part of our DNA. I would also like to see large scale pvp between factions, taking on space stations, guilds controlling systems and stations etc... This would probably happen in the outer rim away from "civilized" places. If people dont like it no one is forcing them to get involved. Also the bounty system could work so that a player could put a bounty on another player who destroyed him or is harrasing him/her. So if you are an honest miner, trader, explorer you could use a guy like me to go after the criminal who destroyed you. I personally would never destroy an inocent trader or miner. But I would go after pirates no problem. This is how I like to play Elite. I also like to explore and maybe I would sometimes need to "disable" competition trying to bring analysis data back. Elite needs to be a 21st century game and MMO is a 21st century concept. Of course there need to be safeguards and options for people who do not like to socialise,but not at the expense of people who do. Eventually why not have a Swiss stile referendum with the question being asked at the start of the game options window - then developers can really know what percentage of players is for or against and make a more informed decision. As someone mentioned previously I do not think that this forum is a statistically accurate representation of opinions.
"Spaceways aren`t safe ways"
Kind regards Cmdr MJC.

 

[MJC]

Well said Cosmos

I do see your point and understand when you talk about being hunted by packs of players but has that ever even really happened? Open Play to me means I can play the game with people and see new players along the way be it as friend or foe. But I think its erroneous to think that all those promoting Open Play are just wanting to shoot at others.

Now hopefully this isn't going out the bounds of forum rules but I've seen you many times in game during development and shot at you once (in beta 2 I think) - when you had a bounty on you outside a station. I didn't kill you, stopped, sent a msg and asked for a friend request - which was rejected (as is your prerogative) and fair enough. But it would seem even playing within the ethic of the game wasn't well received.

If we had a shared sense of peril and the game was truly dangerous we might all have a reason to co-op for self preservation rather than some wish thinking on the part of DB. Again, if we are to co-op might we have reason to do it?

Ultimately, I just want to see people playing the game together and thats why I'm trying to promote group play.

I agree with you 100% dude. I think these fears are unfounded. To think as all pvp open play people as bloodthirsty pirates and griefers in unfounded. This a bit like thinking that all bikers are up to no good or dangerous folk.
Yesterday I interdicted a chap far out in Anarchy system while exploring. I was just pleased to see a fellow human being and say hello. I did type a chat message in comms and was completely ignored. How rude. It is not the first time people have ignored my friendly comms messages such as "Hello" or "Nice ship". It seems to me that a some ED players seems to ignore comms and are either frieghtened or unsocial bunch. Very sad when compared to other MMO communities. I really feel a lack of community feel in open play. Only once did a guy at Eranin warone send a message to me to say "Nice shooting" and we had a brief chat abou joysticks. I wish I remembered his name because a month after that no one has ever spoken to me in game (and I do play almost daily).

And finally I agree with your quote that "a shared sense of peril and that the game was truly dangerous" would really bring people together. I know for a fact that peril or war brings the best and worst out in people. Many in this forum focus on "worst" options (packs of pirates hunting miners) but they forget about the friendship, camaraderie and loyalty which mutual struggle can bring. If I was your mate and you were mining a rich asteroid I'd come and watch you back in my combat kitted Cobra and if necessary I would die defending you. But to experience this feeling firstly one needs to have a friend and some trust in people. And how does one meet friends online? By being together, mining together, fighting together, dying together and laughing together.

 

[Mobius]

Very sad when compared to other MMO communities. I really feel a lack of community feel in open play.
And finally I agree with your quote that "a shared sense of peril and that the game was truly dangerous" would really bring people together. I know for a fact that peril or war brings the best and worst out in people. Many in this forum focus on "worst" options (packs of pirates hunting miners) but they forget about the friendship, camaraderie and loyalty which mutual struggle can bring. If I was your mate and you were mining a rich asteroid I'd come and watch you back in my combat kitted Cobra and if necessary I would die defending you. But to experience this feeling firstly one needs to have a friend and some trust in people. And how does one meet friends online? By being together, mining together, fighting together, dying together and laughing together.

that shared sense of peril you mention has already created a community of over 750 members that has come together for friendship camaraderie and loyalty.

 

[Phosphora]

Hello everyone,


To cut the long story short I'm 100% for guilds groups interaction and pvp. I am a bit concerned having read this forum about the opposition coming from a handful of people to anything to do with pvp and interaction. In their need to remain in their protected little bubbles they are actively campaigning to deny the rest of us the right to have groups/alliances/guilds and pvp. This I find undemocratic. Why ? Because solo mode is already there for people who dont like interaction or pvp.
Kind regards Cmdr MJC.

People vary. Some are extroverts, and get energy from being in crowds. It's just possible that people who like PvP are extroverts. Others are introverts, and get energy from being on their own. Maybe the solo trader/miner/explorer would be an introvert. Elite needs to cater to both types of people if it is going to succeed.

I personally enjoy social chat and interaction, but loathe PvP. For me it is dull and tedious. What you enjoy could well be boring to others. Could we get people to agree on whether marmite is nice or nasty?

People like me won't necessarily play in open/PvP if they can't play in a private group. They may just not play Elite at all, and play a game that suits their playstyle. Abolishing private group options could just reduce the number of Elite players. It won't necessarily increase the numbers playing in open.

Mobius' group has over 750 players in it. Doesn't look like I'm alone.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[MJC]

that shared sense of peril you mention has already created a community of over 750 members that has come together for friendship camaraderie and loyalty.

And how many players play Elite exactly ? What percentage would 750 amount to if you dont mind me asking ? Please dont get me wrong - I have no objections with groups such as yours doing what you like doing. Fair play. Live and let live. What I find concerning is the sheer pressure that you and few other posters here seem to be applying to anyone who dares to even entertain the idea of pvp or guilds. This seems to me more like a lobby group trying to prevent pvp and guilds at all cost, and not really interested in a compromise.

 

[MJC]

People vary. Some are extroverts, and get energy from being in crowds. It's just possible that people who like PvP are extroverts. Others are introverts, and get energy from being on their own. Maybe the solo trader/miner/explorer would be an introvert. Elite needs to cater to both types of people if it is going to succeed.

People like me won't necessarily play in open/PvP if they can't play in a private group. They may just not play Elite at all, and play a game that suits their playstyle. Abolishing private group options could just reduce the number of Elite players. It won't necessarily increase the numbers playing in open.


Cheers, Phos.

Hi Phos,

I really enjoyed reading your response. I found it quiet informative. I think what we need to focus on is finding middle ground. How could we protect players who dont like PVP but have them play with everyone else in open play ? So there is more of us and it is more fun for everyone. This is the main question we need to focus on. Here are a few ideas:

Security in Democratic core systems should be quick and lethal. Anyone foolish enough to engage an innocent player in PvP should be dealt with quickly.
Also persistent perpetrators could be kept in "prison" (account locked or walk around a cell in penal colony etc...) for a few days to allow them to cool their heads and think twice about doing it again.

Also there could be insurance policies which covered players ship and cargo in Democratic systems but not in anarchies. (any insurance company would fully insure your car within EU but not if you went to other countries outside it)

Security in Anarchy systems should be minimal or non existent (appart from few km from space stations). This would allow Pvp guys to hang around those systems. If you dont want to go there dont - simple as that.

And there could be "medium" security systems in between.

I also dont uderstand the logic of wanting to be part of open play but to be completely immune from any acts of crime or violence. Isn`t solo play designed for that? What can happen if you walk anywhere in London or New York or Paris. You could be perfectly safe or run a small chance of someone robbing you or even a smaller chance of someone shooting you. Also if you seek safety above all you would hang out in downtown LA - not Compton, or Copacabana and not the favelas in Rio. There are risks in life. Its what makes it exciting and worth living. It just seems to me that this Health and Safety conscientious society is trying to completely eliminate risk.

 

[Mobius]

I think of the all group as a huge carnival like nottinghill carnival,
everyone can join in and have a great time.
on the whole most go home at the end with great memorys and stories to tell,
but you have the darkside the muggins the stabbings the unwanted encounters with undesirables, not everyone going to the carnival is there to have a good time but to prey on people who are,
everyone is aware that these things happen and people will take that risk for a good time,
.
.
.
.

Then i see private groups as private parties, everyone that joins the party is aware that everyone there has been invited and they are there for a good time,
if anyone cause trouble they are kicked out of the party,
on the whole Everyone goes home at the end with great memorys and stories to tell. there is no darkside to this party as everyone understands they are all there for the same reason, and thats to have fun.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think what we need to focus on is finding middle ground.

Not really - the existence of solo-online, private groups and open-online has been in the stated game design from the outset - to seek a compromise would suggest that change is necessary - there have been discussions on this topic ad-nauseam and there has been no sign that Frontier are going to change this feature set at all.

What I find concerning is the sheer pressure that you and few other posters here <snip> seem to be applying to anyone who dares to even entertain the idea of pvp or guilds. This seems to me more like a lobby group trying to prevent pvp and guilds at all cost, and not really interested in a compromise.

.... and where does that put the lobbyists for corporations / guilds / magic travel / territorial control / etc.? Discussion relating to the merits of sticking with the stated game design will always seem to be obstructive to those with an agenda for changing the game.

 

[MJC]

Not really - the existence of solo-online, private groups and open-online has been in the stated game design from the outset - to seek a compromise would suggest that change is necessary - there have been discussions on this topic ad-nauseam and there has been no sign that Frontier are going to change this feature set at all.

.... and where does that put the lobbyists for corporations / guilds / magic travel / territorial control / etc.? Discussion relating to the merits of sticking with the stated game design will always seem to be obstructive to those with an agenda for changing the game.

I can see that there is no point trying to have a balanced and grown up dicussion on this. I dont intend to spend my days competing with "Deadly" posters on this forum. I have enough stress in everyday life as it is...
Good luck to you all and thank you for the "welcoming" to ED forums. I will not bother you any more.

Kind regards,
MJC.

 

[Phosphora]

Security in Anarchy systems should be minimal or non existent (appart from few km from space stations). This would allow Pvp guys to hang around those systems. If you dont want to go there dont - simple as that.

And there could be "medium" security systems in between.

I also dont uderstand the logic of wanting to be part of open play but to be completely immune from any acts of crime or violence. Isn`t solo play designed for that? What can happen if you walk anywhere in London or New York or Paris. You could be perfectly safe or run a small chance of someone robbing you or even a smaller chance of someone shooting you. Also if you seek safety above all you would hang out in downtown LA - not Compton, or Copacabana and not the favelas in Rio. There are risks in life. Its what makes it exciting and worth living. It just seems to me that this Health and Safety conscientious society is trying to completely eliminate risk.

I bought Elite as it allowed me the freedom to do as I wanted. I want to explore - I find that fun, that's my personality. I want to avoid PvP, as I find it boring.

As I'm nearly in my fifties with slow reactions I would almost always lose in a PvP fight. PvP would become like a bug in the game - a random crash that saw you lose money and time. To me that would be boring. I simply would not play Elite if PvP was compulsory. Frontier recognise that, which is why private groups are an option.

I want to be part of open play as I like talking to like minded people. That's why I joined Mobius' group. For the real world example you give, I would like it if crime could be reduced to zero, everywhere. Crime is an intrinsically bad thing. I personally don't find risk exciting at all. I get my kicks out of learning new skills, reading literature, directing theatre plays, playing chess, not from being mugged. People are different, and what can be exciting to you may be dull and tedious to another.

I have no problem whatsoever with people being able to engage in PvP if that's their thing. However, it should not be compulsory.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[withnail]

And how many players play Elite exactly ? What percentage would 750 amount to if you dont mind me asking ? Please dont get me wrong - I have no objections with groups such as yours doing what you like doing. Fair play. Live and let live. What I find concerning is the sheer pressure that you and few other posters here seem to be applying to anyone who dares to even entertain the idea of pvp or guilds. This seems to me more like a lobby group trying to prevent pvp and guilds at all cost, and not really interested in a compromise.

Interestingly, I am in favour of PvP but have also joined Mobius' group for when I want to play the game without being hassled by other players ( and most importantly not hassle anyone else).

I like the flexibility of the group mechanic.

 

[expired one]

The thread has been an interesting read seeing both side of the argument.

Can see the fear of open players. If most play in private groups the open universe will dead
If elite didn't have the private group option or remove the feature and tried forced me into the open world. I'd just uninstall the game because elite it will end up like eve. Where with bigger alliances / cooperation make impossible for smaller groups / individuals pilots to play as they be dominating regions of space which become no go areas.

 

[Zaxxon]

Have you considered TeamSpeak3? http://www.teamspeak3.com/

 

[alphabet]

After playing a week or so with friends a few bits of feedback I have on groups-

Private Groups don't always work, need players to constantly re-log.
Sometimes one player can see another, but the other won't see the player back..

Public (Open Online): Hard to get in same session as friends!
We need some sort of party up / group system implimented-
Players can start a party at main menu, host chooses public/private session and it drags all the players in there with them. Don't load into session until there is slots available for the team.

In Game
Need a way to separate friends from Other online players on radar- Could have friends as Green instead of blue square or something similar.
Make it clearer if friend is in session and Instance, in the top left contacts it always shows friends online whether their in your game or not.

This +1

I played with a friend tonight in a private group. We were both pretty miffed that we were in our own little world together and not in open. What was worse than that, is half the time we could never find each other; we would both be outside of the same station, but we were in different instances... We would very much like grouping tools to be better in the game. After reading this forum, I can see a lot of folks that get their panties in a bunch if someone mentions guild. Ok, no guild, but how about some better freaking group tools?!? Everything Euan Neo mentioned needs to happen. I honestly don't see the why grouping in an MMO has people so scared. I could get thirty more people I game with to join this game if it had adequate grouping tools. Instead they are waiting for SC, because quite frankly, trying to play with your friends in this game sucks at the moment.

 

[Renegade Roach]

This +1

I played with a friend tonight in a private group. We were both pretty miffed that we were in our own little world together and not in open. What was worse than that, is half the time we could never find each other; we would both be outside of the same station, but we were in different instances... We would very much like grouping tools to be better in the game. After reading this forum, I can see a lot of folks that get their panties in a bunch if someone mentions guild. Ok, no guild, but how about some better freaking group tools?!? Everything Euan Neo mentioned needs to happen. I honestly don't see the why grouping in an MMO has people so scared. I could get thirty more people I game with to join this game if it had adequate grouping tools. Instead they are waiting for SC, because quite frankly, trying to play with your friends in this game sucks at the moment.

The people who get in a flap as soon as guilds or whatever one wants to call them are mentioned have, by and large, had their hands burned in EVE (or have just read about it) and are terrified of the evil space bullies. It's pretty tedious and currently the lack of group tools, let along guilds, really hampers enjoyment of this game for a lot of players. Even basic group text chat which could allow me to communicate with my friends in game without having to have them on scan would be a massive plus. I can't use voice coms and since I only have one screen and the game is prone to crashing if I alt-tab I'm stuffed when it comes to communicating when we are all actually playing. Quite honestly it's shockingly poor for a multiplayer game to lack such basic tools in this day and age. I don't know whether it is because technical issues are hampering the implementation, FD are utterly naive about the importance of this, or if they simply don't want us to communicate without being parked next to each other due to some bizarre concept of 'realism'. I would dearly like to know.