Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future
- Thread starter dementia
- Start date
Yes, finally someone with the proper credentials, I know a few professors you might be friends with depending on your age, ooo I'm so happy!
I actually haven't done any reading on Scruton, but from a rough search on google, it seems like he deals with aesthetics, do correct me if I'm wrong, but I am very pleased to have another author to read about aesthetics. Though it seems like the quote you used run opposite to Ranciere/Whitman/Schiller, who also wrote on aesthetics to various extents, I am more than happy to read Scruton's take on the matter. If there's a book or any of his work you can recommend to me, I'd be more than happy to add it into my collection.
The issue with having an objective is that the terms defined to reach the objective, or rather the instruments have to be objective in their ideal sense, but as we both know, that is impossible to an absolute level. Meters and measurements need standardization, and reviews are one of the more difficult ones to deal with considering the amount of personal desire/expectation and the appeal of the game to different people and their respective sensibilities and senses. This cause people to advertise something in their own vision, people perceive the product and advertisement to be things within their vision, and thus having reactions to various aspects to the game. This inaccuracy in both perception and conception is what cause people to have their expectation shattered or met. When this gap grows large and in large quantities regarding a single aspect of a multi-facet, interactive matter such as a game when compared to others of the same class, I believe we should be questioning the advertisement. Sure, there will be people satisfied with the unconventional approach and the gap between their expectation and realization, but it seems to be the minority in the case for those seeking a MMO experience. As for the phenomonon you describe, people tend to do that do various degrees, only the most severe can be clearly distinguished to be a strong case of "confirmation bias." Then to evaluate that adds another layer of inaccuracy.
I suppose, however, I would simply argue that the redeeming factor for the gap in players' expectation of the game and the reality they deal with is close to none for those coming into this game due to the tag of MMO.
Well, then we have to go into a debate in the likes of whether social commentary demands an alternative image or that mere criticism remains valid.
And yes, I think I grasp what you're trying to convey. However, at the same time, despite that the development time hasn't been long enough to put a definitive nail in the coffin for the case on ED being a MMO or not, the current mechanics provided for social interaction is indeed lacking, let it be conventional interaction or not. I haven't read Scruton so I don't know if he mentions reconciliation. The most difficult subject I'm dealing with right now in ED is how to reconcile between all of the players it accumulated of various conflicting types and still make a community out of them. The greatest issue in Whitman's imitation and reconciliation are fundamentally conflicting traits within people, like religions that inherently deny one another for monotheistic claims of different deities. So to apply some sort of commonality that brings people together like Ranciere proposes might be one of the reasonable solution, but I'm not sure how to apply that pragmatically.
That would be unfortunate.
I feel that BGS is definitely lacking. And the players that want to play territorial control via PvP will have a hard time due to the galaxy being shared in all three modes, which is why I find your approach with a private mode for territorial control might not gain much traction. While I understand the financial/design reason behind keeping only one universe, it seems to be one of the most prominent issue that some of the PvPers are not content with in terms of territorial control. I also understand the flaw of instancing, but it's the idea that there is no chance of stopping some people from entering a certain space to influence a system that drives those players nuts.
I have been brainstorming for quite a while as to what can FD/playerbase do to make PvP more meaningful than organized events and random encounters. Like I said before, it's like trying to reconcile two monotheistic religions without eliminating either nor converting either to one another and they have to share the same church, quite a conundrum for me.
I pretty much explained this in one of the quotes I answered above so I'll sum up the reason:
Individually people weigh certain issues more than others, which obviously is the text-book definition of what causes the Confirmation Bias, even when we have an objective oriented argument, this perceived goal is different for all parties participating in the argument, regardless of who initiated the argument. Intentions/desires lead and reflect in action, then action can reflect the intention, all we can do is infer the intention from actions that we can perceive, this inference itself is often times not entirely accurate or can even run opposite of the actual. Thus Confirmation Bias more or less exist in all of us, claiming someone having confirmation bias is usually not meaningful unless the claim itself has an objective to put relative terms into relative contexts, then when we actually do that, we might as well be accused of having a confirmation bias, as well, since we are carrying out our act with the intention and desire of showing another person that they have a confirmation bias. Then both sides provide evidence proving otherwise, either successfully convincing one another of having confirmation bias, one convinces another of having more of a confirmation bias, or both remain unconvinced and believe both to have confirmation bias. The only productive result is when one convinces another, but it either results in confirmation bias or it started from confirmation bias. This neutral state is always left to be challenged, and if we are to say that truth lies in this neutral state or that continuous pursue of the truth through this cycle will lead us to the truth, then I must ponder what is the point of it to begin with.
Anyway, as for your point, I mentioned the reviews in the context of those writing in relevance to the MMO tag/MMO content, which you find little positive reviews that comment toward the MMO factors within the game while the negative reviews have quite a lot of focus on them, which is why I mentioned that positive reviews by themselves, without categorizing, are indeed larger in pure number, but when you separate those praising the MMO factor of the game and put them together with the negative reviews relevant to the MMO factor of the game, you'll realize why the "MMO crowd" is not very content with what they received. Like many mentioned here, ED was a kickstarter aimed at mostly offline players, then it suddenly changed its focus in an attempt to incorporate online players, then slapping a MMO tag onto it, and it is the MMO tag itself that I am challenging in its advertisement, nothing more and nothing less.
But seriously, recommend a few books to me by Scruton, I cannot forgive myself for not knowing a philosopher/theorist dealing with aesthetics.
Edit:
From the look of it, you seem like a fundamentalist, which area did you study more in? Moral? Psychological? Law? Science? Which field of philosophy did you like the most?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Lol that is true, I only write what makes me feel good.
And I am feeling good right now because I found a philosopher on the forum!
I don't need Coffee for another twelve hours at this rate
I'll reply in full later. I have a busy 3 year old trying to put makeup on me right now. A few recommendations for Scruton first though.
While his speciality is aesthetics, I prefer his lectures on philosophy in general. The line I quoted is a dismissal of those who go to in depth into metaphysics. I think Bertrand Russell is an example of the madness that lies at the end of that road. Descartes put the entire field in a headlock from which they all could never escape. Scruton recommends that you don't forget to maintain a detached perspective when dealing with the questions of metaphysics. Philosophy is the process of searching for an answer, not the answers themselves. Russell went insane imo, because he forgot that.
So, this is a good read. It gives an interesting take on all areas of philosophy: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0140249079/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1452950372&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=roger+scruton+modern+philosophy&dpPl=1&dpID=41N69SMIMlL&ref=plSrch
I'd recommend steering clear of anything he wrote before 2005. Prior to this, Scruton was little more than a cranky old Tory. Pretty much everything original that he wrote was an attempt to rationalise the Tory agenda. After that, he changed his approach quite a bit. He toned down the ultra-conservative mindset, which culminated in this pragmatic approach to real issues:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199371245/ref=mp_s_a_1_26?qid=1452950690&sr=8-26&pi=AC_SX118_SY170_QL70&keywords=roger+scruton&dpPl=1&dpID=518xlklo1AL&ref=plSrch#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1452950715624
Either Sol and Achenar and other systems are off-limits to player groups, in which case Frontier retains full control over the story and lore of the game universe, and that's a road-block in the 'sandbox'.
Or they can be controlled by player groups, in which case Frontier loses full control over the story of the game universe.
And if player groups can change allegiances, then the story of the game becomes irrelevant. If groups cannot change allegiances, then they are required to make a decision and set it in stone, even though there would be consequences of that decision years down the line, which people arguing about "Sandbox!" would not like, as it is a constraint on player freedom. "I ended up fighting for the wrong side!" and so on.
There's umpteen different games where the story and lore of the game universe is utterly irrelevant. Why create decades worth of backstory for a game, and then go "lol, none of this matters, tl:dr" ? And if the story and lore is irrelevant, then why does it matter if Elite is set in the Milky Way or not ? Why play Elite, and not one of the other games with clan pvp/territory control systems, unless the story and lore is important ?
Thanks, I'm always happy to read more about philosophy, and add more books to the bookshelf!
Feel free to use private message after this, I think the moderators might flip our picnic table soon for going slightly off topic @_@
I like this idea - should also be tagged to a player account.
Problem is that it's a game first. A 24 hour lockout might be just be enough time to become immersed in another game. I get what you're saying, but it's not good game design. 1st law of game design is to keep players playing. If Candy Crush has taught us anything, it's that people will even spend the rent check to keep playing.
That's probably your reason for opposing player owned in-game assets? For fear of not being left alone to do your own game?
Get into solo then.
Solo, group, and open are all the exact same thing, short of who you may find in an instance with you. Anything a Cult/Corp/Clan does in one Mode, will necessarily affect the others. If the Player Group mechanic allows for many of the requests posted in these threads, players in solo would most definitely be affected.
Even just your attitude: 'get thee to Solo', only goes to shows the contempt the Groupers hold for the lone wolf players. I don;t see why a Player Group system that is responsive to both sides of the argument can't be found. Reasonable arguments have been made, only to have an extreme position come and tear it all away. That is why it is far better to let FD decide how to proceed, than to expect us customers could do nearly as well. So far they are off to a good start.
But isn't that what solo is for? For you to be in your own instance and universe alone, so you can do your own thing?
I do that too when I want to farm Hi RES sites for bounties without other players competing for kills.
Then I get back into Open to play the game as usual, whether it be a small cargo run, smuggling, or to wing up and hit other traders for fun.
Last edited:
Candy Crush is a different game altogether. A good T.V. show can keep a person interested for years with only a half hour or so a week. Now I do understand that 24 hours is a bit heavy handed (which is why I put it on the high end), but 12 hours with awesome rewards (great discounts, guild paint jobs, etc.) or 6 hours with less rewards should be fine. If they really wanted the could just move them to a shadow server where their action mean nothing for (for the BGS/PvP) that time frame. And I know T.V. shows don't take up as much time, I mentioned them because of how well they make viewers wish the did.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The issue he is having (I assume) is that player owned assets would affect solo and group mode like everything else. I am against that for more than that though. Player owned space would be a big feature, and that would likely exclude solo/small group players from it.
Last edited:
No. That isn't what Solo is for. Solo is for people to play, without other commanders. Not to abandon all game features besides farming NPC's. A solo player may enter an instance of a system you are in while in open. They will be engaging the same environment you are, you just won;t see them. If your Cult has control/influence over the assets in that system, that would affect the player in Solo. Give the player groups too much influence over a system, and individual players will be impacted.
I have been thinking about how to handle the solo player or private group impacting a system that is impacted by players/factions playing open. If I think of this in real life terms the solo player is like a spy or resistance movement. Only when their impact becomes significant are you aware of them. What about having a threshold that forces the solo player or private group to be instanced in open. This would allow players who just want to fly through occupied space to proceed without impact. However if they start engaging in activities that impact system control they get forced into open once they reach a certain measure.
Last edited:
Fighting solo player vs. group players through the BGS is all good, for me. Having Player Groups gain features that could affect how an individual player interacts with the BGS is not. Having perks or assets that a non-clanned player can't take advantage of is a problem too. Player Groups should get all the help they can squeeze out of FD, as long as it doesn't separate what Grouped and non-Grouped players can do or affect.
They wouldn't even have to. Assuming that the clans are allowed to build limited number of bases and only in uninhabited systems, and that this activity requires significant efforts from well coordinated player groups (meaning that not every player group is able to do that, or to do that all the time)... I'd expect that total number of clan-controlled systems is at any given time miniscule compared to size of the bubble -let alone whole Galaxy. Chances that the loners are being harassed or that their preferred play style is somehow put to danger by mere existence of clans should be negligible.
I think that some people just don't realize how stupendously big -yet, mostly unused- playground we've got in ED. There's plenty of space for everyone.
Last edited:
Why would a player group value a Base in the middle of no where? I don;t believe they will. That, along with the fact the player groups have already started associating with minor faction all throughout occupied space that things would/could not be removed to the outer reaches. Unless you intend that once completed the Cults would compete solely between themselves outside of the BGS, I can't see things working out without the filter of the BSG.
I am not sure why are you using the term "cult"... that's pretty odd name for player groups.
Anyway. Yeah, it is my belief that the clans would work best outside of BGS which is way too rigid, provides little feedback, some parts do not make sense (way that the conflicts are being started in relation to influence), and sometimes generates unpredictable results either due to the bugs, or its generally unfinished/rough state. Sure, it would be nice if the BGS could be more developed and the clans are fully integrated, but at the moment BGS would be more a nuisance for clans than anything else I'm afraid. At least that's what I think. BGS should be either improved, a lot, or simply left to control NPC factions and PvE activities within the inhabited bubble.
Note that I am fully aware of the fact that FDEV has already made some steps with minor player-named/supported NPC factions and that it might be already too late to alter this course in order to give much needed freedom to player groups.
Agreed, and not only that... The term player owned asset is also very loosely defined. And all these worrywarts are simply assuming that clans or groups would use these assets to lock other players out.
My question is: to what end?
Suppose a clan is able to band together to build a small outpost station, or planetary outpost... What gain would it be to them to lock neutral players out? Surely it would make more sense for them to have more players actually dock there and use it, whether as a measure or popularity or prestige.
As someone has mentioned, services at stations are going too cheap. There's no docking charges, like in FE2. Fuel costs are negligible, repair and rearm costs are also too low. A station can earn credits if costs are adjusted. And also, who says that all clans or groups have only war on their minds. Clans can be formed by traders too. Players interested in pooling their wealth, and owning assets to generate more wealth.
Even if the owners of the outpost decide to lock it down for neutral players, it's still no big deal. Let's say I am neutral who chose to ignore all that clan stuff and mind my own business as usual. Do I really have to dock on that small God-forsaken outpost on the far outskirts of bubble (or much further than that)? What am I missing if I can not? Why should I care to begin with? How much time will it take me just to jump away to next system on my route? What are the chances to get interdicted and killed by locals if I'm playing in open? Assuming that I really, really have to pass through this one particular system claimed by clan, instead of simply taking small detour - how can they stop me from doing that?
Absolutely. Me and my buddies, for example, would like to create our own explorers hub somewhere deep into the space and open it for anyone to drop by, take a rest, refuel, rearm, perhaps have a chat etc. Sure, at some point we might decide to change the pace, declare war onto some other clan and have fun fighting them, but it's not a must. And again, our little warfare should not affect anyone who prefers to play alone and be neutral.
Actually, my reason for resisting player-owned in-game assets is the same as many people's - we've watched it kill many games. Thankfully, FD seems to be of the same mind (as are other up-and-coming games with PVP sliders to ensure you meet only whom you wish to meet). Many players bought E|D because FD was so firm about "we will never allow player-owned in-game assets."
As far as "get into solo," I thought guys like you wanted more players in Open because "it's a ghost town" and all of you are deathly afraid of "invisible armies" undoing your work on throwing a system in solo/groups.
Just exactly how do you think a base visible to clanners would function for solo or group modes? Would it even be visible?
I also do not play Solo exclusively. If you don't like the game, go find one you do like. It's that simple.
Last edited:
... and this is why I +rep you. There are those on the G/C/G/C side who have put forth suggestions that the majority of posters here have thought were a good implementation; most especially comms & other social organizing tools. I am not "against Groups/Clans/Guilds/cults" - I am firmly against player ownership of in-game assets, and it seems many are in both camps.