The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Mohrgan]

Here is some relevant info on the future of guilds in Elite.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=171819

 

[Stigbob]

And that's why the wise salesman has a vacation bungalow in Mexico.

Mexico can be a very pleasant place, however there are some area's where large groups of extremely violent types tend to misbehave.

A really wise place for a holiday home is the Scottish Islands, or Canada.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

I would probably have described it differently to Asp, but he's right in terms of the messge he's conveying.
.
Elite is a game developed with the intent of AVOIDING the toxic aspects of guilds. Well known stance for a LONG time. Game releases without guild content - by design. Doesn't mean such content won't come - Frontier even said they'd as much as continue to look at it - but for now, whether you people like it or not, guild content is NOT on the roadmap (at least as far as Frontier has indicated thus far).
.
BUT we have people coming here, KNOWING the current Dev stance on guild content, choosing to ignore it in their quest to get Frontier to change their stance. Those of us who oppose it are simply reinforcing and supporting Frontier's design decision. A decision that some just don't disagree with (which is fine by the way). BUT instead of accepting Frontier's design and adapting their own gameplay to fit the game they've bought, or leaving to play something else, (again, KNOWING there is no guild content) they insist that their way is the only way and that everyone else (INCLUDING Frontier) is wrong to not want what they want, to the point of saying there's always solo mode if WE don't like it.
.
I understand the frustration that Elite hasn't followed the path some want, but maybe it's time some accepted that maybe it's not the game they want if guild play so central to how they want to play. For most of us the current design direction re guilds is fine because we didn't want guilds to begin with.
.
The burden of proof is with those who want guilds, not those of us simply agreeing with and supporting Frontier's design choice. In my opinion, the polarising of opinions we see here, and resorting to stacking the poll as was done in this instance, just reinforces that Frontier were right to avoid guild content to begin with - ie guild content primarily does little more than create friction and conflict both in-game and out. That's despite the fact that there ARE positives to guilds, it's just that the negatives outweigh them for most of us.

To this I would say:

The premise that guilds bring a toxicity to social interactions is baseless and unfounded. However, I've already shown how they improve player interactions.

Guild content is not needed. ED can provide that as is and with the upcoming expansions will provide more.

Game devs make stupid decisions all the time. FD is not immune to such. This suggestion from the community is offered to encourage them to re-assess their decision before the decision becomes a financially significant failure, and thus qualifies as stupid.

We get that some of you have a sour taste in your mouth about guilds. Tens of millions of other players around the world do not, and consider them mandatory. ED is currently introducing content that skates around the border of being guildlike so closely that if it were a felony FD would have been arrested on suspicion. There has been a lot of fearmongering about what guilds "could" bring and what "might" happen, but that's all it has been, whereas there have been credible, identifiable and documented responses on the positive benefits that guilds would actually have for both the community as a whole and FD's budget.

 

[Malpherian]

Then that's where guilders need to nut up. What make more sense:

a) argue for a year to get features added, having to bicker and convince everyone else to agree to what they want, then wait for it to actually be implemented

or b) using a third party program that's free, customizable, and provides most, if not all, of the features they want.

If these people are lazy (and therefore I assume don't use things like VoiceAttack or head tracking software or Shadowplay or anything else like that) then it's up to the people who want to make this happen to make it as easy and convenient as possible.

Come up with an ideal "guild" configuration, with whatever apps are needed already set up, and make it as close to "one-stop-shopping" as possible, rather than being overwhelmed with the idea of having to get a program and then the apps, etc...

Or, you know, they can stick with their nothing for the next year. That works too.


What I'm saying is, encourage people to be problem solvers. I wanted to feel like i was flying in a cockpit rather than a fixed forward viewscreen - I did not spend the last six months demanding that ED implement native head tracking recognition.

This situation is no different.

Guys, any time people bring up the idea of guild communication, mention Overwolf. Encourage them to look into it. And anyone who currently uses it and wants a guild? Why don't you come up with an "ideal" setup for it you can share to make things easier for potential users?

Let's be problem solvers, on both sides of the issue.

A. Makes more sense.

Reasoning. Because those features will increase the longevity and interactivity for ALL people who play the game, even if some players never use them, many will. I would rather argue for a year for features to be added, then give up and watch the game dwindle and flop. But hey you know what you all keep asking us too and maybe we will. When your the only one playing and FD closes the servers in a few years because it can't afford to keep them open or compete with the competition.

You can come visit these empty forums and look at this thread. And realize, it was you who helped destroy what could have been a great game to rival all others.

---

Too melodramatic?

Sadly no. It's happened before with games just like ED with people like you arguing the side your arguing, and people like me arguing my side (It was me in some of those cases). you see unlike you, I've been down this road with other companies, your not the first person to have your ideas for a single player co-op MMO space shooter. ED is also not the first company to do it, You've also got Entropy, Black Silo, Star Conflict, and many more.

3 of those I might add, Started out with the same mentality as You about 3rd party programs, and Guilds in game. They didn't want them. Debates went on for about 2 years of closed beta (With Star Conflict as the main example here). People said the same things your saying now, and the same things I have said here... Finally.. The Pro-Guild Union gave up, and left... All was quiet and the Anti Guilders had their day.

For about 3 months everything was golden, then the SC developers noticed something, There population was dropping (People were going to Entropy and others which supported social structures in game), there sales also and servers were merged. Finally they come out with a press release stating an Update with Guild functions and much more to come. They also wrote an official apology for being short sighted, they were new to the MMO industry, it happens, people forgave them.

Suddenly their servers were active again as soon as the release hit, there sales were up, and the anti guilder Doom guilders? Honestly I'm not really sure what happen to them, I never saw them post again. But the game has millions of players now, and loads of content (Just not my style and setup, reason I don't play it anymore)

--- You want to know something about Star Conflict? It's great game, has a TON of content (Far more the ED, even then), But because their stubbornness and belief that Market and industry standards, and consumer desires did not apply to them they almost failed, and their game almost died because of that arrogance.

ED is a game with far more potential then any of those, even EvE. But only if it harnesses it and uses it. This game despite what it is, a great game, can fail just like any others. It's not immune to the consumer wants and needs.

- And you know what? Maybe FD will be happy with a game population of a few thousand. Maybe they will be fine adding trinkets every expansion instead of massive GB's of content, and maybe you folks will be ok with that also.

I personally think that would be sad, and from the evidence I see in game and the potential, I can not understand if that is the case, why FD would choose to make something so Monstrously Huge. Maybe simply because they could? Well if that's the case, it's a lot of wasted money economically speaking, they could have created a model that would do that and be everything the ED fans desired for half the price they made this version for....

So no, I can't see them being happy with the small close minded vision the anti guilders represent.

But, that is also, my "opinion" and nothing else, so take it how you want it.

 

[Mohrgan]

To this I would say:

The premise that guilds bring a toxicity to social interactions is baseless and unfounded. However, I've already shown how they improve player interactions.

Guild content is not needed. ED can provide that as is and with the upcoming expansions will provide more.

Game devs make stupid decisions all the time. FD is not immune to such. This suggestion from the community is offered to encourage them to re-assess their decision before the decision becomes a financially significant failure, and thus qualifies as stupid.

We get that some of you have a sour taste in your mouth about guilds. Tens of millions of other players around the world do not, and consider them mandatory. ED is currently introducing content that skates around the border of being guildlike so closely that if it were a felony FD would have been arrested on suspicion. There has been a lot of fearmongering about what guilds "could" bring and what "might" happen, but that's all it has been, whereas there have been credible, identifiable and documented responses on the positive benefits that guilds would actually have for both the community as a whole and FD's budget.

I decided against posting.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-39845-p-2.html

Asp Explorer, you claim the galaxy will be too dangerous with guilds. Is it not really because you were not the ace pilot you thought you were gonna be back in the day? When you made statement like the one on here? How about I direct everyone to the previous mega-thread, where you went on to instruct players how to ban via IP in realtime. Or the many other threads where you do the same. People who ban via IP, and people who combat log, do not deserve to be in Open play, and their opinion on matters such as social groups would be less than valuable to anyone capable of critical thought.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Here is some relevant info on the future of guilds in Elite.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=171819

And all along the proponents have pointed towards FD's actions speaking louder than their words. This is a primary example.

 

[Bacalao]

To this I would say:

The premise that guilds bring a toxicity to social interactions is baseless and unfounded. However, I've already shown how they improve player interactions.

Guild content is not needed. ED can provide that as is and with the upcoming expansions will provide more.

Game devs make stupid decisions all the time. FD is not immune to such. This suggestion from the community is offered to encourage them to re-assess their decision before the decision becomes a financially significant failure, and thus qualifies as stupid.

We get that some of you have a sour taste in your mouth about guilds. Tens of millions of other players around the world do not, and consider them mandatory. ED is currently introducing content that skates around the border of being guildlike so closely that if it were a felony FD would have been arrested on suspicion. There has been a lot of fearmongering about what guilds "could" bring and what "might" happen, but that's all it has been, whereas there have been credible, identifiable and documented responses on the positive benefits that guilds would actually have for both the community as a whole and FD's budget.

In other words "all concerns against guilds are invalid silliness and both you and FD are stupid for having them because we found studies". Of course any of us having a sour taste in our mouth or completely satisfied with the game structure as is are just imagining it all and are paranoid weirdos. Glad that is settled.

I work in analytical chemistry, it's a "hard" science, half the crap published is still just speculative crap some other guy is going to "disprove" shortly, anything related to social psychology is orders of magnitude more speculative, hardly proof.

the issue is far more about player controlled and independent organization. Pretend powerplay or "Mobius" are a guild.....(still makes me laugh)....all you want, it's no more a guild to be involved in powerplay than to be in a guild because you play Horde.

 

[Stigbob]

To this I would say:

The premise that guilds bring a toxicity to social interactions is baseless and unfounded. However, I've already shown how they improve player interactions.

Guild content is not needed. ED can provide that as is and with the upcoming expansions will provide more.

Game devs make stupid decisions all the time. FD is not immune to such. This suggestion from the community is offered to encourage them to re-assess their decision before the decision becomes a financially significant failure, and thus qualifies as stupid.

We get that some of you have a sour taste in your mouth about guilds. Tens of millions of other players around the world do not, and consider them mandatory. ED is currently introducing content that skates around the border of being guildlike so closely that if it were a felony FD would have been arrested on suspicion. There has been a lot of fearmongering about what guilds "could" bring and what "might" happen, but that's all it has been, whereas there have been credible, identifiable and documented responses on the positive benefits that guilds would actually have for both the community as a whole and FD's budget.

That's just your opinion.

Player run guilds do tend to be toxic, in DBOBE's opinion (and mine) their inclusion will never be mandatory.

That's why players will be able to support an NPC faction, with dev oversight. Those who feel the need can join a club, but by taking the decision making process away from people you deprive them of the opportunity to indulge in the more toxic aspects of guildness, such as issuing mandatory diktats.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And all along the proponents have pointed towards FD's actions speaking louder than their words. This is a primary example.

Yup - we've known about a forthcoming "player sponsored Minor Factions being able to become Powers" feature for a while - scant details so far.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

To this I would say:

The premise that guilds bring a toxicity to social interactions is baseless and unfounded. However, I've already shown how they improve player interactions.

Guild content is not needed. ED can provide that as is and with the upcoming expansions will provide more.

Game devs make stupid decisions all the time. FD is not immune to such. This suggestion from the community is offered to encourage them to re-assess their decision before the decision becomes a financially significant failure, and thus qualifies as stupid.

We get that some of you have a sour taste in your mouth about guilds. Tens of millions of other players around the world do not, and consider them mandatory. ED is currently introducing content that skates around the border of being guildlike so closely that if it were a felony FD would have been arrested on suspicion. There has been a lot of fearmongering about what guilds "could" bring and what "might" happen, but that's all it has been, whereas there have been credible, identifiable and documented responses on the positive benefits that guilds would actually have for both the community as a whole and FD's budget.

The fallacy here being that only "needed" content should go in the game. Of course, one persons idea of what a game needs might be very different to someone else s. It does not "need" anything at all. How about this compromise, allowing a player to turn off guild tags. That way, they wont see the tags in game, and go on pretending they don't exist, like now. Everyone else can have fun in a universe filled with identifiable player groups.

 

[Mohrgan]

And all along the proponents have pointed towards FD's actions speaking louder than their words. This is a primary example.

The point is FD have a plan for player groups to form up under the banner of minor factions. Allowing empire building through the BSG, and following the rules of the BSG. Let's talk about that, instead of following down the same old path? Let's discuss ways to make this approach a success.

 

[Asp Explorer]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-39845-p-2.html

Asp Explorer, you claim the galaxy will be too dangerous with guilds. Is it not really because you were not the ace pilot you thought you were gonna be back in the day? When you made statement like the one on here? How about I direct everyone to the previous mega-thread, where you went on to instruct players how to ban via IP in realtime. Or the many other threads where you do the same. People who ban via IP, and people how combat log, do not deserve to be in Open play, and their opinion on matters such as social groups would be less than valuable to anyone capable of critical thought.

08/09/2014

When was Elite released? 16/12/2014

 

[Raile]

That's just your opinion.

Player run guilds do tend to be toxic

And that is just your opinion, stop stating it like fact.

 

[Bacalao]

The point is FD have a plan for player groups to form up under the banner of minor factions. Allowing empire building through the BSG, and following the rules of the BSG. Let's talk about that, instead of following down the same old path? Let's discuss ways to make this approach a success.

But that isn't as fun as being in charge of a bunch of anonymous kids on the internet, is it? Add in a title to boot and the ability to make rules! I knew a kid who set up a "club" so we could all "play" together when I was 10 or so, you can guess how that went. I very much doubt it is about banding together for a common purpose, the game has plenty of that without the need to give disproportionate amounts of control/influence over game assets and other players to individuals.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

In other words "all concerns against guilds are invalid silliness and both you and FD are stupid for having them because we found studies". Of course any of us having a sour taste in our mouth or completely satisfied with the game structure as is are just imagining it all and are paranoid weirdos. Glad that is settled.

I work in analytical chemistry, it's a "hard" science, half the crap published is still just speculative crap some other guy is going to "disprove" shortly, anything related to social psychology is orders of magnitude more speculative, hardly proof.

the issue is far more about player controlled and independent organization. Pretend powerplay or "Mobius" are a guild.....(still makes me laugh)....all you want, it's no more a guild to be involved in powerplay than to be in a guild because you play Horde.

"Horde"? Is the best analogy you can come up with? No. Powerplay isn't picking red vs. blue, but that was a nice try.

That's just your opinion.

Player run guilds do tend to be toxic, in DBOBE's opinion (and mine) their inclusion will never be mandatory.

That's why players will be able to support an NPC faction, with dev oversight. Those who feel the need can join a club, but by taking the decision making process away from people you deprive them of the opportunity to indulge in the more toxic aspects of guildness, such as issuing mandatory diktats.

No, it's not an opinion, it's proven. Games with active social elements not only have better player environments but remain active longer. Point out one other MMO within the last decade, successful or not, that has not had social groups. When you go back 2 decades to find the dinosaurs that did have them, you'll find they died young.

Proof. Prove to me that Tens of millions of people around the world actively engage in guilds despite it being a detriment to their experience.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Proof. Prove to me that Tens of millions of people around the world actively engage in guilds despite it being a detriment to their experience.

Difficult to, if, as you suggest there are no MMOs (other than this one, of course) that do not have Guilds - it would seem that there is no evidence to be found as MMOs have Guilds (at least in the last decade).

 

[Stigbob]

And that is just your opinion, stop stating it like fact.

I think you missed the second half of my sentence, here it is :

Player run guilds do tend to be toxic, in DBOBE's opinion (and mine) their inclusion will never be mandatory.

I've made the relevant bit really big for you, see it's just my opinion.

Did you have a point ?.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Difficult to, if, as you suggest there are no MMOs (other than this one, of course) that do not have Guilds - it would seem that there is no evidence to be found as MMOs have Guilds (at least in the last decade).

Then your next line of reasoning would be to ask why no MMO's within recent history were created without social tools.

 

[Raile]

I understand quite a few of the anti-guilders previously had hoped this game stayed singleplayer upon release, which it didn't. Now, the closest you have to avoiding any social contact is playing solo which is fine I suppose, but please don't try to drown the rest of us in your social anxiety while hiding behind the guise of game design.