I really don't understand the devs...and to be honest I really don't understand you people either...
For the devs - There's this game that has a huge potential (better than Eve, because that was back when there were no other viable options). It already has a big player pool and it's faced with heading in two directions: one where it delivers on what it actually advertises (definitive multiplayer experience, steam says MMO etc.) and in doing so openes doors for player-generated content - all those social interactions generate complex social situations which if within roleplay bounds can have a greater positive effect than 100 powerplay schemes- plus, everytime you add an expansion you also get even more complex social interactions and then you get to have a living breathing universe
...and the option where you restrict player interaction, limiting oneself to released content (which gets old quickly) and a dry sort of co-op that can "definitively" satisfy the "multiplayer needs" of even the most anthropophobic of your players
to those who don't want player interaction tools - Please answer this: I understand that you don't want more multiplayer content but why do you want to take the option away from everybody else who would love to have it?
More so, I would like to put forward another question, to the entire community:
Given the fact that we do have a "Solo" and "Open" play, couldn't we also have a "Multiplayer" cathegory or something similar, where all Multiplayer features could be implemented and in time, some people could still stay Solo, others would stay in the current state of limited interaction in "Open" but there would also be an option for all of us who prefer to actually interact socially in a "decisively multiplayer" advertised game. It would be nice to have such an option, especially for those (like me) who bought the game because of its advertisement as multiplayer.
Advertised as multiplayer? Yes, although I would agree there's significant room for improvement on that front.
.
Advertised as guild-based, complete with territorial warfare, base building etc? No, not once.
.
There's room yet to move somewhere in the middle, such as improved guild communication and management tools (chat, member management), but the line has been well and truly drawn in the sand by Frontier well before now in regard to anything more advanced. Remember though, that despite what many believe, MMO or multiplayer does not necessarily equal guild-based, nor does it need to. While guild play requires multiplayer, the opposite is not automatically true. Your mistaken in thinking many of us don't want more multiplayer content though (many of us do) - it's the concept of guild ownership of in-game assets and territory, the supposed 'next step' from improved guild communication and management tools, as part of that content that we object to.
.
Your suggestion of a 'multiplayer' mode is fine - we already have one and it's called open. It is already multiplayer, despite the fact that some never seem to get that multiplayer in a game area as vast as the galaxy modelled, even only the inhabited zone, was NEVER going to feel as densely populated as your typical MMO - and that won't change even with improved social tools. But then Elite: Dangerous has never been portrayed as your 'typical' MMO. It's players with fixed views of what constitutes multiplayer and MMO, and the required mechanics, that mistakenly transfer that expectation to THIS game. Sure, the multiplayer mechanics still need some fleshing out, but guild mechanics that incorporate guild ownership of assets and territory are not required to meet the multiplayer scope.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Sorry, but I 'm tired of Elite evolve in the wrong direction because of people who seem not to understand the modern video game.
And I'm tired of people mistakenly thinking we don't understand the modern video game just because we have an opposing point of view on what the scope of THIS particular game should be. We actually understand them quite well - and we've learnt to understand very well that what we see in the so-called modern video game is often not all that great. It's those who don't understand that not everyone has the same taste in what makes games fun that fail to grasp that not every 'modern video game' needs to be the same as every other 'modern video game'. Ever heard of diversity?
