The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

Why play in open? Why does my mode of play matter? When I play in open I play there for PvP action. The 'one man, one ship' ethos was a selling point of the game. It is refreshing not to have to find other players in order to progress. As it is everyone is on the same footing, and I like it this way.

My post that you quoted includes all of my problems with the possibility. Maybe you could just give that a read.

I don't want to have to find other players in order to progress and I don't think you should have to. But I do like playing with others on occasion and a multiplayer game should not be actively hostile to doing so. And currently the game is rather hostile to playing with groups if one chooses to.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't want to have to find other players in order to progress and I don't think you should have to. But I do like playing with others on occasion and a multiplayer game should not be actively hostile to doing so. And currently the game is rather hostile to playing with groups if one chooses to.

Can you elaborate, please, on what "hostile" means in this context?

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

I think that a lot of those who oppose such ownership are quite aware as to how inventive players who wish to abuse game mechanics can be. PvP flags were discussed in passing in the DDF (never even mooted by Frontier) and dismissed as too gamey.

Being able to "delete" Guilds would lead to inconsistencies where some players in an instance could see them and others could not.... Simpler to delete them all by creating a new mode to house the Guild features.

We have that now. In group mode one can see members of their group that are in open. But those in open can possibly see people in open that the person in group mode cannot see.

 

[Mohrgan]

I don't want to have to find other players in order to progress and I don't think you should have to. But I do like playing with others on occasion and a multiplayer game should not be actively hostile to doing so. And currently the game is rather hostile to playing with groups if one chooses to.

That's a Multi-player problem. Not a reason for guilds.

 

[Herik]

The inclusion of such a mode, to which every player would have access, would probably go some way to mitigating the objections of those who oppose the introduction of any Guild features as players could choose whether to play among Guilds or not as the case may be while having the opportunity to encounter random strangers in Open or the new Guild mode. While I understand that Guilds will probably want to have as many players as possible available to interact with, the fact that the only freely accessible mode where players can meet random strangers seems to be earmarked by Guild proponents for the introduction of the proposed features completely disregards the wishes of those who quite like the existing Open mode but do not want to play among Guilds.

Thank you Robert Maynard, -this is the Guild proponents position; and even with special 'guild groups' the dominate position it would give them versus the non guild players. And then we'd have the required necessity to be a guild group member to have any self achievement in PP. Not what a non guild player would want. So with this mode there still would be objections...

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

Can you elaborate, please, on what "hostile" means in this context?

If I am playing with a group I have to MANUALLY add anyone in the group to my friends because I have no way of seeing them otherwise. After I have added them I can't chat to all of them at once. I have to chat with each person individually. I belong to a fairly large group. I have no idea when most are on because after manually trying to add each person I got fed up with the game wasting my tom on creating a list that the server already has and then still making it difficult to do anything with them. and then on top of that I tried to wing up with someone once. We were in a wing and I could not see them. We were both sitting outside of the same station and nope couldn't see each other no matter what we did.

Basically play as you like as long as you play solo. Because we will be actively hostile to the possibility that you might want to play with other people.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a Multi-player problem. Not a reason for guilds.

Actually no. That is a guild problem. As playing in a group is a guild. And this game is actively hostile to playing in a group. You keep equating guilds as being bad and yet you still have not actually addressed why guilds are bad. The way you defined guilds matches mine but then you said they were bad for reasons. But never defined those reasons.

 

[Asp Explorer]

How does the game know you are friends with someone without and extended and accepted friends request?

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

How does the game know you are friends with someone without and extended and accepted friends request?

Why can I not have a list of people who are in my group? Why do I have to manually add them to my friends list? Why can I not just have a group list and save my friends list for people I enjoy playing with who are not members of any of the group I am in?

 

[Stigbob]

i just do not understand why the idea of all pro-guild people in one mode together, without non-guild people, is bad.
why is it a requirement for some to force people who do not want guilds to suffer them?

Targets.

 

[Talarin]

Not to speak overly for him - but I think Corran Antilles is driving at the same thing I was - poor friends management tools make it an absolute pain to handle being associated with a larger group of players without having to resort to 3rd party tools.

I think we reached a vague consensus on that already though: Improved friends management aka clan tools (as opposed to guild functionality) = good. Guild functionality, pooling of resources and entity ownership = bad.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think we reached a vague consensus on that already though: Improved friends management aka clan tools (as opposed to guild functionality) = good. Guild functionality, pooling of resources and entity ownership = bad.

Did the vague consensus go that far? I took from the discussion that some form of comms for player groups (inside Powers / minor factions) was on the table. Not "clan tools", whatever they are....

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

Not to speak overly for him - but I think Corran Antilles is driving at the same thing I was - poor friends management tools make it an absolute pain to handle being associated with a larger group of players without having to resort to 3rd party tools.

I think we reached a vague consensus on that already though: Improved friends management aka clan tools (as opposed to guild functionality) = good. Guild functionality, pooling of resources and entity ownership = bad.

I still don't see what the problem with guilds is. No one will say. I have no idea what the difference between clans and guilds is. i listed out what at the core a guild was and all the anti guild people went off on all the optional stuff and said no guilds because of these optional things cause we hate guilds.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Good point on CQC as it relates to a PVP mode. However, Guild-vs-Guild combat isn't quite what I had in mind during this discussion (It may entertain a number of other players who are a touch trigger happy in open though, so again - good point well made.)

I'm unsure as to what exactly you're looking for from guilds that doesn't already exists.

I am completely behind ideas for people to form clans, get their own clan channels, have a way for the game to allow identity of clan members etc. There is a whole lot of depth that could add to the game if done right. Clans could, for example, get collective influence over minor and major factions. If one of your clanmates committed a serious enough crime (such as murder) maybe all of your clan get a bounty on them and are outlaws.

That'd be great!

But owning stations? That just doesn't work in this game. Stations are owned and maintained by local factions, which are themselves normally comprised by the citizens of that particular system. The stations pricing, services, outfitting inventory etc is determined by the tech levels of the system and the types of goods that system produces. It's very much a part of the universe.

If you start taking stations off in-game factions and hand them onto players, who can (and will, despite protestations) arbitrarily decide to deny docking unless arrivals say "oh yes master, you are the best space captain ever" you do two things:

1. You enable griefing on a massive scale, and give people the tools needed to cause organized griefing.

2. You rip parts of the game out of the Elite universe and put it into the hands of random people on the internet, making roleplay or immerson next to impossible in some instances.

 

[Mohrgan]

Actually no. That is a guild problem. As playing in a group is a guild. And this game is actively hostile to playing in a group. You keep equating guilds as being bad and yet you still have not actually addressed why guilds are bad. The way you defined guilds matches mine but then you said they were bad for reasons. But never defined those reasons.

I contend that the game being difficult on MP types is a MP problem.

I have already defined guild for you. And, to supplement that I went on to elaborate on what I think the trouble with guilds, specifically in Elite, are, or more to the point; would be. If you choose not to recognize that, that's your business. I'm not going to chase my tail so you can be obtuse.

 

[Talarin]

Did the vague consensus go that far? I took from the discussion that some form of comms for player groups was on the table. Not "clan tools", whatever they are....

The "clan-tools" were the comms for player groups. That's it. No additional functionality beyond bringing the friends system into something approaching the 21st century, with a bit of categorisation, inherited friends (ASP Explorer occasionally talks about facebook in space - that's not a bad comparison on the whole) and a group chat channel with that group of people.

I even draw the line at other players being able to see group names and tags. No need for it in my book (but some people might like a selectable option to be able to see it).

I still don't see what the problem with guilds is. No one will say. I have no idea what the difference between clans and guilds is. i listed out what at the core a guild was and all the anti guild people went off on all the optional stuff and said no guilds because of these optional things cause we hate guilds.

Clans is an older version of what what MMO guilds have become. I use the phrase to draw a line between Guild functionality (which is where a lot of the contention on the topic comes from) and the better social tools that I specifically am advocating.

Let me turn the tables slightly - look at your optional list. Do you not see that some or all of those items might lend an advantage to players who are members of that guild. Then expand the logic - what if it's an absolutely massive guild?

I'm unsure as to what exactly you're looking for from guilds that doesn't already exists.

I am completely behind ideas for people to form clans, get their own clan channels, have a way for the game to allow identity of clan members etc. There is a whole lot of depth that could add to the game if done right. Clans could, for example, get collective influence over minor and major factions. If one of your clanmates committed a serious enough crime (such as murder) maybe all of your clan get a bounty on them and are outlaws.

That'd be great!

But owning stations? ...

Yeah, but basically you and I already agree (actually you take it further than me - not up for Guild influence over minor factions truth be told). We've just been approaching it from different starting positions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I still don't see what the problem with guilds is. No one will say. I have no idea what the difference between clans and guilds is. i listed out what at the core a guild was and all the anti guild people went off on all the optional stuff and said no guilds because of these optional things cause we hate guilds.

Put bluntly, some people (probably not many, but in some cases any's too many) take full advantage of the anonymity that online interactions bring and take any opportunity to dominate others - just because they can. When that type of behaviour is facilitated by similar players grouping together, the results are sadly quite predictable.

 

[Cmdr Corran Antilles]

Define: Guild. I'll give it a go....

Guild: A group of people/players joined together for mutually beneficial game play.

My reasons for having a no-guild stance is not based on a simplistic definition of guilds. It is based on a historic implementation of these kinds of groups. I feel that Elite has staked out a unique, 'one man, one ship' ethos. I want that to persist, guilds fly directly in the face of that notion. In other games, guilds have been used to dominate non-guilded players. I would have Elite avoid that situation.

There is a continuing vision for Elite. As far as I know Elite's plans haven't included Guilds. I am against using developer resources to create all of the content the pro-guild faction is calling for. I believe, if guilds were introduced, that there will come calls for large group/guild content. Aside from the diverted resources, I am totally against content that isn't available to every single, and I do mean single, players.

I have done my best to explain my position. I have repeatedly backed the idea of an improved comm's approach. I have also backed a compromise tyat would give the pro-guild guys all of the bells and whistles, but have them segregated from the general population. If there are any histrionics going on, they are on you.

You basically said because you feel this should be a solo game. So no you can't have guilds. You did not really define what you think the problem with guilds is. The only game I have seen that guilds have been used to dominate other players has been Eve and even the Eve players that have talked about it here said the problem is not what the people against guilds here think. And the things that could be used to dominate other players DO NOT EXIST in elite dangerous. There are no choke points. And one does not have to do as they did in Eve.

 

[Mohrgan]

I still don't see what the problem with guilds is. No one will say. I have no idea what the difference between clans and guilds is. i listed out what at the core a guild was and all the anti guild people went off on all the optional stuff and said no guilds because of these optional things cause we hate guilds.

This is getting ridiculous. You cannot be reached. The distinction between Comm's and Guilds has been pointed out any number of times. You ignore the conversation. What influence a guild mechanic can have on this game has been described any number of times. You ignore the conversation.

The fact that you don;t see the possible problems that many here, and FD as well, see is not an indictment on those that do see them.

What you listed out as core guild functionality closely, if not exactly, matches the improved comm's approach mentioned uncountable times in this thread. The rest of what 'could' be included in guilds is what the no-guild side rejects. The idea is to avoid the pit falls that other developers have tripped up on. Why follow a flawed system? Why not learn from the experience of others and just by pass the guild cliche?

 

[Talarin]

This is getting ridiculous. You cannot be reached. The distinction between Comm's and Guilds has been pointed out any number of times. You ignore the conversation. What influence a guild mechanic can have on this game has been described any number of times. You ignore the conversation.

The fact that you don;t see the possible problems that many here, and FD as well, see is not an indictment on those that do see them.

What you listed out as core guild functionality closely, if not exactly, matches the improved comm's approach mentioned uncountable times in this thread. The rest of what 'could' be included in guilds is what the no-guild side rejects. The idea is to avoid the pit falls that other developers have tripped up on. Why follow a flawed system? Why not learn from the experience of others and just by pass the guild cliche?

In fairness, I have a sneaky suspicion that Corran's first language isn't English.

And also, at the risk of hurting myself on the fence I'm sitting on, I'm sure that there would be a way to eventually introduce guild-like mechanics into the game without compromising the integrity of the game for the lone wolf player. It's just a bit polarised in this thread to properly examine the problem without someone on either side getting defensive.

 

[Mohrgan]

You basically said because you feel this should be a solo game. So no you can't have guilds. You did not really define what you think the problem with guilds is. The only game I have seen that guilds have been used to dominate other players has been Eve and even the Eve players that have talked about it here said the problem is not what the people against guilds here think. And the things that could be used to dominate other players DO NOT EXIST in elite dangerous. There are no choke points. And one does not have to do as they did in Eve.

For the last time, I refer you to the post you quoted. Those are the reasons I favor no-guilds. I have never mentioned solo. You did. I play in all of the modes as my situation allows. Your experience does not form a potent response to my experience. Maybe you just haven't seen what I have. I played Eve for a matter of days, hours even. It did nothing for me. I never witnessed any of the guild 'influence' in that game. Positive or negative. You acuse me of being ruled by assumptions, but you carry a few your self.