The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Crazy Jedi]

That is exactly what Drunks of Sol are all about take a drink every time someone says pew-pew

Ha! you said it!

Bottoms up everyone!

 

[Soliluna]

A log! By Blammo.

I'd love an ingame log. With a button "copy current system name".

Many times this - I'm not so smart with my whereabouts. I'm great with a compass and 'feeling out' a location - in an example, I've lived in my new town for about 8 months now, my partner knows the road names and what is on those roads. I know the road names of the place I live on and work at. The rest of the things I use in the town I 'feel' my way too. "This one was downhill, towards where the sun rises". "This one is uphill, past the monolithic council building beside the ugly grey courts".

 

[Cadoc]

Many times this - I'm not so smart with my whereabouts. I'm great with a compass and 'feeling out' a location - in an example, I've lived in my new town for about 8 months now, my partner knows the road names and what is on those roads. I know the road names of the place I live on and work at. The rest of the things I use in the town I 'feel' my way too. "This one was downhill, towards where the sun rises". "This one is uphill, past the monolithic council building beside the ugly grey courts".

A log and the ability to make my own notes on the galaxy map are some of my most anticipated features, right up there with walking around my ship. It would also be great if explorers could leave messages - beacons, perhaps - in unexplored space, with Dark Souls-style warning and directions. Of course that will be more important once Space Dragons are finally implemented.

 

[PavelKCZ]

Heh, and to make things more confusing. Player owned hangars/stations can be anything from a bachelor pad with a landing platform to a full fledged fully equipment totally controllable Coriolis station.

Actually that is and interesting idea. The player owned "houses" should be modular and built part by part. Af first something small like a dock and refuel service and after some time and saving, player can buy and add things like reload, repairs, pub etc.
There should be only one condition. The player owned shop/house must be newly added to game, either in totaly uninhabited system or at orbits where are no "game owned" spaceports. This will have the benefit of growing size of inhabited space bubble.

 

[Stigbob]

You were in Mobius last night.

Yep, for about three minutes in total on a few separate occasions. I had to cycle through the modes for a while to get the RNG to give me a Naval ascension mission to get Serf, quickly followed by a clipper on special offer at Kamito for 18.5 million.

Always wanted to try the clipper but never could be bothered with the grind for baron, having bought it it's definitely a keeper.

"Amazing-looking ship though. Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow."


PS, say hello in game next time. I only PvP in self defense or for bounties, forum stalking is a bit creepy. Unless you were crouching in my garden in which case watch out for the dog.

 

[Hootmon]

.
Great post, REP is due. Pity some won't read it or understand it.

I did it for you

 

[Crazy Jedi]

I did it for you

Aah bless

 

[mossfoot]

Does anyone know if Overwolf could be used to fill the communications gap?

 

[Talarin]

True and thank you for acknowledging that both scenario's are occurring now. But think how with the introduction of your proposed social tools how the hardcore players will raise their level of undesirable play to exponentially high levels. And really no one would be able to stop them if they get too big. As has been discussed at length, just getting the tools will not be enough, once they get those, then the posts, the rants, the posts predicting the death of the game will spew forth demanding they get their own stations, discounts, the ability to enforce their law in their piece of space.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the slippery slope/increasing demand arguments.

We've already agreed that Guilds are in the game, and sometimes behaving badly with aid from 3rd party tools. Improving the chat/group/guild-social functions can't make that worse. If a player, or group of players, is predisposed to anti-social behaviour then improving tools within the game is not likely to change their behaviour. All you are doing is making things more accessible to those players who might have access to the same level of tools.

Imagine we were discussing the introduction of friends lists. Would you argue that the introduction of friends lists would lead to a increased likelihood of anti-social behaviour in game? If you wouldn't (which I suspect is the case) then how can the introduction of better friends lists (which is what we've essentially defined the core of "Guild" as)?

In terms of feature creep - when you start from the design position that any Guild functionality cannot confer an advantage to a guild member when compared to a non-guild member (which we can safety assume would be the case) then you realise that "Guild-ownership" of a shared bank, a fleet of vessels, a station or a system just can't happen. And that's before you consider the technical and instancing issues involved.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Imagine we were discussing the introduction of friends lists. Would you argue that the introduction of friends lists would lead to a increased likelihood of anti-social behaviour in game? If you wouldn't (which I suspect is the case) then how can the introduction of better friends lists (which is what we've essentially defined the core of "Guild" as)?

Then start a new thread asking for better friends list - group - wing tools.

This thread discusses the idea of giving areas of space over to players, players who may or may not be willing to allow others to play the game their own way when said players arrive in "their" space.

Agree that guilds don't, and can't, 'own' game assets and you'll find a lot of people aren't so hostile to the idea.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We've already agreed that Guilds are in the game, and sometimes behaving badly with aid from 3rd party tools. Improving the chat/group/guild-social functions can't make that worse. If a player, or group of players, is predisposed to anti-social behaviour then improving tools within the game is not likely to change their behaviour. All you are doing is making things more accessible to those players who might have access to the same level of tools.

I beg to differ. While there are players who co-ordinate using OOG tools, there are no in-game tools / tags / etc. to indicate that they are Guild members. Improving or introducing chat/group/guild-social tools will, in all likelihood, facilitate their organisation and mean that those who are so inclined have more time for mischief - so "can't make that worse" would seem to be entirely optimistic from that perspective. If a group is predisposed to anti-social behaviour and is even remotely effective using OOG tools then introducing in-game alternatives can only make them more effective, i.e. worse in this scenario.

 

[Cadoc]

I beg to differ. While there are players who co-ordinate using OOG tools, there are no in-game tools / tags / etc. to indicate that they are Guild members. Improving or introducing chat/group/guild-social tools will, in all likelihood, facilitate their organisation and mean that those who are so inclined have more time for mischief - so "can't make that worse" would seem to be entirely optimistic from that perspective. If a group is predisposed to anti-social behaviour and is even remotely effective using OOG tools then introducing in-game alternatives can only make them more effective, i.e. worse in this scenario.

You are making an argument for wasting the time of members of player groups, so that those few who are griefers have less time for griefing. I can't properly put into words have wrong-headed this is, especially in a community like Elite, where the overwhelming majority of player groups have been a hugely positive and constructive force. Advocating inconveniencing thousands of regular, decent players just so you can make things minutely more difficult for a tiny minority is just mind-boggling. Even if it worked - and it won't, no griefer will be seriously inconvenienced by having to jump on TS to group up with friends - it would be the least efficient way of reducing griefing imaginable.

 

[Talarin]

Then start a new thread asking for better friends list - group - wing tools.

This thread discusses the idea of giving areas of space over to players, players who may or may not be willing to allow others to play the game their own way when said players arrive in "their" space.

I would, but the last couple of threads where that discussion was going on got merged into the original Guilds-megathread - which this thread is the successor to. I'm up for the discussion - how would a mod feel about that being a separate thread from this?

I beg to differ. While there are players who co-ordinate using OOG tools, there are no in-game tools / tags / etc. to indicate that they are Guild members. Improving or introducing chat/group/guild-social tools will, in all likelihood, facilitate their organisation and mean that those who are so inclined have more time for mischief - so "can't make that worse" would seem to be entirely optimistic from that perspective. If a group is predisposed to anti-social behaviour and is even remotely effective using OOG tools then introducing in-game alternatives can only make them more effective, i.e. worse in this scenario.

I'll echo Cadoc's post here - perhaps not as strongly, though. Are you genuinely trying to make the case for deliberately not improving social tools in a multiplayer game on the basis that it might make things easier for a organised group of anti-social players (but make no difference to a single or wing of anti-social players - the most common form of grief in the game), but haven't weighed in on the suggestion that a lot of the concerns about anti-social behaviour is actually a crime & punishment issue?

 

[Stigbob]

I'll echo Cadoc's post here - perhaps not as strongly, though. Are you genuinely trying to make the case for deliberately not improving social tools in a multiplayer game on the basis that it might make things easier for a organised group of anti-social players (but make no difference to a single or wing of anti-social players - the most common form of grief in the game), but haven't weighed in on the suggestion that a lot of the concerns about anti-social behaviour is actually a crime & punishment issue?

Perhaps the reason solo-griefing is the most prevalent form (if you ignore groups like code), is the lack of guilds and guild tools.

Most ED griefers use disposable ships as tools (the orca springs to mind) that takes quite a lot of space cash, the most exploited credit "workarounds" involve more than one player.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I would, but the last couple of threads where that discussion was going on got merged into the original Guilds-megathread - which this thread is the successor to. I'm up for the discussion - how would a mod feel about that being a separate thread from this?

My heartfelt suggestion is this - forget about guild support, and instead ask for clan support. Ask for the ability for a group of friends to get into a sort of "permanent wing" situation in game, with their own personal channel between them, the ability to set (but not own) a home base somewhere, and a bunch of other things which might make clan-play or wing-play more fun and engaging (shared use of limpets for example).

A new thread on this, spelling out the differences between guild and clan support and asking participants to stick only to clan discussion, may not get merged.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are making an argument for wasting the time of members of player groups, so that those few who are griefers have less time for griefing. I can't properly put into words have wrong-headed this is, especially in a community like Elite, where the overwhelming majority of player groups have been a hugely positive and constructive force. Advocating inconveniencing thousands of regular, decent players just so you can make things minutely more difficult for a tiny minority is just mind-boggling. Even if it worked - and it won't, no griefer will be seriously inconvenienced by having to jump on TS to group up with friends - it would be the least efficient way of reducing griefing imaginable.

I'll echo Cadoc's post here - perhaps not as strongly, though. Are you genuinely trying to make the case for deliberately not improving social tools in a multiplayer game on the basis that it might make things easier for a organised group of anti-social players (but make no difference to a single or wing of anti-social players - the most common form of grief in the game), but haven't weighed in on the suggestion that a lot of the concerns about anti-social behaviour is actually a crime & punishment issue?

I was primarily responding to the opinion that "social function can't make that any worse" - "can't" is rather too definitive in that context.

I fully expect that some form of in-game communications will be included at some point for groups larger than Wings - especially with the upcoming yet-to-be-detailed mechanic for the possible promotion of player sponsored minor factions to Powers.

 

[Cadoc]

Perhaps the reason solo-griefing is the most prevalent form (if you ignore groups like code), is the lack of guilds and guild tools.

Most ED griefers use disposable ships as tools (the orca springs to mind) that takes quite a lot of space cash, the most exploited credit "workarounds" involve more than one player.

First of all, CODE is not a griefer group, unless you automatically equate PvP with griefing. Second, there are already guilds, and some of them have *massive* numbers. We've seen a drop in activity for Torval near 50% once EIC withdrew from that Power. If player groups wanted to seriously grief, they would be doing so - as such, they are actually main anti-griefing force in the game.

 

[Stigbob]

First of all, CODE is not a griefer group, unless you automatically equate PvP with griefing. Second, there are already guilds, and some of them have *massive* numbers. We've seen a drop in activity for Torval near 50% once EIC withdrew from that Power. If player groups wanted to seriously grief, they would be doing so - as such, they are actually main anti-griefing force in the game.

It depends on your definition of griefing, to a T6 trader being asked for protection money and threatened with being placed on a KOS list (by which I mean a code travel pass) it's probably a bit of a pain. This is based on forum posts by code as the only interaction I've had with them in game is some of their members trying and failing to ram me outside Lave station.

Give an example of guild based anti-griefing, protection rackets (fee's, due's, travel passes whatever you want to call them) don't really count. Mutual protection usually evolves into ganking non-members on sight. Going out there to protect the innocent independents isn't something I equate guilds with, going out to gank innocent independents yes that's a bit guildy.

And you missed the point with the credit exploits, a guild could nominate a station with a shipyard as a no-fire go to location for buying disposable sidey's and clearing each others bounties.

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

It's not a slippery slope argument.

Not so long ago a handful of... individuals... claimed ownership of GLS at Leesti. They rammed anyone who didn't ask their "permission" to dock. It shows human nature, particularly internet human nature, and the tendency of some 'broken' people to do weird things to others for their own weird sense of fulfillment. The proposal to give players control over docking permissions basically also puts station security in their hands - it'll be a griefers paradise.

Guilds - merely a bad idea.

Player owned stations - it's up there with hydrogen filled hot air balloons and giving Charles Manson a lift home in the scale of truly catastrophic ideas.[/QUOTE HEY do it with out guild tools. Because it is not a guild problem. It is a pvp problem. What you are complaining about needs to be dealt with by adjusting pvp.not by limiting communications tool.

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

.
.
Thank you for replying, that hasn't happened a lot in this thread when questions have been asked.
.
Yes your guild sounds great, kind of a Robin Hood and his Merry Spacemen type of thing. But you see I have seen the other side of the coin, lets call it the Sherriff of Nottingham scenario. That is where you see the poor trader being attacked by a mean old pirate, and after dispatching the pirate, make an offer to the trader that he can't refuse - either abandon his cargo or be destroyed. You have a couple of members who don't mind becoming wanted, the Guild will pay for their Sidewinder to clear the bounty - in fact one of your very own guild members will do the honours (and of course collect the bounty). And if this poor trader tries to run, well you have this big group spread out all over the system who can hunt him down for not accepting the Guilds such kind answer.
.
Yes, I know I am talking about something that would never happen, no guild in the history of gaming would have done that, but then again, no player sits outside of a station ganking pilots as the enter and leave a station either ....

Sheriff of Nottingham happens now. It is not guild related it is pvp related. Some players want to be jerks. Make there be consequences to being a jerk is how you fix it. Not by limiting people's ability to talk to each other.