You do realise that the principle premise for multiplayer interaction was indeed intended to be multiplayer coop? PvP, for example, was always intended to be 'rare and meaningful'. I never stated that multiplayer in Elite was a "definitive epic multiplayer" experience - it was however intended to be different from that which we see in many other games. For the record, I don't actually have a problem with some of the multiplayer concepts you describe, such as hiring players for escort, trade contracts and the like. But that's not the topic of this thread. The concepts you describe are indeed multiplayer - but you don't specifically need guild content/mechanics for those multiplayer concepts to work.
.
In regard to your last questions - it's simple. Frontier has already decided to exclude that content for very good reason. They did not want the same guild-based mechanics and gameplay evident in games like Eve and others. They wanted to be different. They wanted the game THEY wanted to play - which, as you can clearly see, has thus far at least excluded the guild mechanics some want. That said, as I have myself stated in earlier posts, the idea of improved guild communications and management tools is not the issue (and I believe we will eventually see things like guild chat introduced) - those alone are not the concern. It's the guild ownership of territory and assets that people like myself oppose - and that Frontier have thus far excluded by design. And while you might view it as an addition to the game, many of us actually view it as a negative - and it is the very fact that there is no guild control of the in-game environment that prompted many of us to back the kickstarter in the first place. So I ask you in return - given the game has been deliberately developed without guild mechanics (to avoid the negative aspects of games like Eve and others), that many of the current playerbase (the majority?) have bought and played the game (and continue to play) specifically BECAUSE guild control is absent, the game has never been advertised as supporting guild control...... why should those who want guild control be given those tools at all instead of them adapting to the fact that this game is different for a reason? This game was never going to be satisfy all tastes, so why can't some people simply accept that and move on if it doesn't suit theirs? Instead, they say 'go to solo' or 'go to Mobius', ignoring the fact that in doing so they are (rather ironically) insisting that we change the way we want to play the game when all we're doing is playing it the way Frontier designed it - they are the ones who want to change that design and the onus is on them to convince Frontier that their design is wrong. Good luck with that.......
.
That all being said, who knows.....Frontier may yet indeed change their minds at some point. As I've stated, I expect that improved tools like guild chat and membership management will come. However, I think Frontier are smart enough to know that going beyond that to incorporating the more advanced features of guild ownership and territorial warfare is a much more contentious and risky move in terms of alienating a significant proportion, arguably the majority, of the playerbase who have bought in specifically BECAUSE of the ABSENCE of that guild content.
Do I realize that the principle premise for multiplayer interaction was indeed intended to be multiplayer coop? No and if it remains that way it's just deceptive marketing, no different from "abidas" tennis shoes and "plima" tshirts. Do you know why? Because it is advertised in a way which does not stress co-op. On steam it even appears listed as an MMO. It's true that group control wasn't advertised but neither were wings because those are features of multiplayer, the larger category to which these two concepts belong to.
I get the "rare and meaningful" interaction and I agree with you, up to the point when you do meet another player...and then what? The only thing you can awkwardly exchange is cargo...playing catch, and that's it. Thus, the rare and meaningful interaction turn to a totally waste of time, which in turn affects (in my humble opinion) the "multiplayer" character of the game, which is so thoroughly advertised and falls so disarmingly short.
Look, in trying to answer my question you tried to explain how group mechanics is implemented and you constantly point to "them"...it's they they they all over the place. I understand what "they" implemented, I played the game. What I don't understand is why "they" promised to make a multiplayer game, advertised it as such, emphasized on the issue and then delivered a hybrid between singleplayer and co-op. You made alot of statements but no logical arguments. What are you afraid will negatively impact the experience of solo players? (I heard the story about "them" already so please do not repeat that)
Even though you have not answered my question, I will try and answer yours but first I have to be certain I understand it: So, you're saying that the game has been developed deliberately without guild mechanics (for whatever reason) and that many of the current players bought and play the game specifically because this guild control is absent. 1st, about the game development, let me politely invite you to visit this section of the forum
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=223142&highlight=broken+promises where Bambi takes in account the broken promises made during Kick-starter. The game is in its year two of development, it is by no means a finished task and it will continue to grow and become more dull or more interesting (fingers crossed for the latter). That's why I am still posting here and I still hope it will be truly multiplayer, as advertised.
Secondly, I think congratulations are in order for your impressive representation of the majority of ED players who play the game precisely because of the lack of group mechanics (to be interpreted as "other players' lack of option to play in groups) but there is also 52.4% (at this time, according to the polls, which I don't know if are representative to be honest) of players who would like to have these features. And to answer your question, I think that one which is trying to impose their own will on others in order to limit their experience needs to re-think their approach and should try to empathize a bit more with "the other". This way we can find win-win solutions together instead of spawning miles of meaningless discussions without solving an issue which seems to be at this time a community problem.
