The most recent is in this thread and it was about 2:1 in favour of Guilds (albeit with some help from advertising of the poll on another website)
Eh, missed that one
The most recent is in this thread and it was about 2:1 in favour of Guilds (albeit with some help from advertising of the poll on another website)
Just like misrepresenting other people's position is a common problem on this forum.
Few people object to ingame comms or tags for clans.
The issue is: implementing guilds/ clans/ corps is too vague to have an opion on. It goes from organised chat to full control on stations. There are guilds/ clans/ corps implementations suggested which would impact players who don't want to engage in it, and there are suggestions which don't.
Solution is to be specific in the suggestions. I hate guilds. Not because I'm afraid how they would impact me, but on principle. But I support guilds being able to organise in game, since I feel it's only natural once the option to back factions was introduced. What I don't support is guilds being able to alter the ingame parameters.
Bottomline: framing the issue as a disagreement between 2 sides is not what's going on here. Characterizing one imaginary side as egocentric is also detrimental to the discussion.
...and to be honest I really don't understand you people either...
<snip>
...and the option where you restrict player interaction
<snip>
to those who don't want player interaction tools
Player run guilds/corporations should be able to fund and operate small/large scale activities that the game already offers. We should be able to start our own minor factions and be able to build & maintain our own facilities and space stations, eventually owning systems and competing with other player factions for lucrative parts of space
The problem is you want to do everything a guild/clan can do. In my opinion is wrong. Even in real in real life it's very very hard to make a single transistor not to mention a computer. In game is the same, but you don't have to set the same goals for you as for an entire team.
For example for me is very satisfactory to go and fight bigger teams/wings whatever, every time you score a kill vs a team, it's better than a kill against some random dude. Guerilla war, hit and run tactics and all that jazz and you can have a lot of fun.
Normally I would agree, but this is not an mmo.
We need to come together in other ways.
Clan systems wouldn't do it but I don't see many people asking for a clan system.
...every time someone raises the spectre of player-owned assets then the inevitable question of what level of control can be exerted will be asked. And that is not an unreasonable question.
I agree with you, I think that there should be as few restrictions as possible. However, when you restrict something in order to avoid future uncertain restrictrions I think that may not be the best course of action.
I think that solo play, just like group play is and should be a key aspect of any multiplayer game. Having both options around will give the most out of ED and precisely because of this I think that they should in no way exclude one another. I have played solo for quite some time (in a multiplayer adaptation of Freelancer) and I know you don't have to join a clan in order to be friends with them.
Regarding the features, I think that all players should have the option of benefiting from the full specter of game features, regardless if associated or not. Having group mechanics restricted would in turn restrict on those features.
The better more basic question is, " Should FD do something to bring the community closer together?" I hope yes would be the answer to the question.
Should tell FD to stop false advertising on the Steam page then .-.
Edit:
And refund all players that bought the game due to the MMO tag .-.
Not a standard mmo*
Sheesh, are semantics really that important? Unlike a normal mmo this game promised to cater to solo players, small groups of friends to simulate a LAN game (private group), and your standard mmo crowd (open). Its an mmo, but only in the most basic and technical sense.
Then perhaps it should explain itself to save it from having a fragmented community and negative reviews?
Clearly revenue was more important .-.
Edit:
And the last time I checked, semantic is extremely important .-.
They have explained what their intent was, and its obvious by the 3 modes. And semantics can be extremely important. But not when the prohibit basic implications and simplifications.
If it really didn't have such a strong effect, how do you explain the fragmented community then? Is there some magical charm that just magically made people purchase a game they realize to be lacking in what it advertised?
Before we carry on I'd like to define something first. When you say "lacking in what it advertised?" what are you specifically referring to?
Yeah I missed your edit, sorry.Both solo players and MP players are complaining about the lack of supportive feature on both end, and try to tear each other apart daily on the forum. PvE vs PvP argument is typical in any PvP/PvE mixed games, but to this magnitude?
Edit:
Read my previous edit:
What gaming community do you see daily argue over the fundamental design and very basic feature of the game to this magnitude?
The logical conclusion to draw from this is clearly that something went wrong with the advertisement of the game.
The above is quoted as an example of the "B-team" position. Notice how it stops talking about communication tools/organizing tools and slides right on into ownership of game assets. It's this position, not "in-game organizing tools," which is being resisted. Then, holy moly! Screams of "you're oppressing us! You don't want the game to be social!" & blah blah etc. Jumping back and forth to confuse the issue; deliberate misunderstandings and nit-pickery are just a few of the slippery forum-warrior tools being used to obfuscate the real issue, as exemplified by the above quote.
Ok "we want social gaming tools, that's all!" people - explain how objecting to ownership of space is oppressing your proposed "in-game organizing tools."
Yeah I missed your edit, sorry.
Although I do not quite see how this relates to ED being a game that does/does not intended to cater to all the types of people I do agree that this game still has many issues. You can't make everyone happy. I think one of the main reasons people bought this game is because what it was advertised as (an awesome newish space sim, and there aren't exactly a lot of those around). I think what keeps people playing is the promise of what is to come. But right now we have a fragmented community because we have a fragmented game. Aside from rep grinding and credit grinding there is little to do, and even when it comes to credit and rep grinding there are very few ways to go about it. Take combat for example. You have CZ farming, RES farming, and USS/SSS/Etc. farming. It bland and lacks direction/purpose/excitement. So with somewhat rare expectation, people who play/bought this game for X reason finds themselves severely lacking content for that.
I think for a start, that the clan system in this game could and should include solo/group players. The BGS/minor faction system is here to stay. But it gives a unique opportunity, in that players in solo/group can actually work with players in open towards common goals through the BGS. There is nothing to stop them joining and being productive within a guild as the game is designed to reward their efforts, even away from the BGS a la Canonn. For this reason, I like to see how this discussion would progress with an acceptance of this ever-present and pervasive fact.
People have gone out of their way in this thread to offer suggestions and backing for social tools - comms being one of them. It seems this is not good enough for a segment of players who believe pewpewpew is "social interaction" and demonstrates "emergent gameplay" while ignoring actual emergent gameplay (Fuel Rats, Mercs, Distant Worlds, Buckyball, CGs) because it doesn't fit in with their idea of emergent gameplay.
I don't understand "you people" either. "Player interaction tools" have been proposed and championed by both sides of this argument. Twisting that to mean "us people" are trying to cut off or destroy any "socializing tools" is ridiculous.
What gaming community do you see daily argue over the fundamental design and very basic feature of the game to this magnitude?
The logical conclusion to draw from this is clearly that something went wrong with the advertisement of the game.
Really? I must have been reading another thread then.
Clan systems wouldn't do it but I don't see many people asking for a clan system. I see a good amount of people asking to be allowed to associate themselves with their in-game player faction. Would be nice if, when someone scanned me in a RES or in super cruise, the info return said "Diamond Frogs" instead of "No Faction"