Come on man? Don't pretend you don't know what he is saying. You just told us all how large groups should be able to affect the BGS and small groups shouldn't. Now you are telling us large groups should be limited in their capabilities...
Did you really need that spelled out to you?
This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. By your rules you would have us in a static universe rather than a dynamic one. I think I would be right in saying most players would disagree with that. FD evidently do. There are elements of your take on things I can appreciate but some are too extreme.
In the same way that I get frustrated with people taking "anti-multiplayer" positions by setting up strawmen (rather than, as you say, trying to be constructive), I should point out that hyperbole and insulting language isn't helpful either. The game will survive without the feature improvements advocated. Obviously I and others would consider it a missed opportunity - but continual development will happen either way and we can expect the feature set to improve over time - thus enticing new players in.
If bases would only be controlled by the AI, why bother with this as a dedicated multiplayer feature at all? Expansion and improvements of the BGS would do the job just as well.
Cosmetic enhancements to any facilities might be a nice touch though.
Station control doesn't have to be part of the improvements though (although I agree - some players will want it and want it badly). Better interaction with minor factions (who may control a station) and improvements to the BGS (in that enriching the local economy produces tangible benefits from the players' perspective).
More content which can be applied to multiplaying-people (and is open to solo players also, perhaps even solo+NPC at some point). Dynamic/emergent story-telling which can be shared around a group of players. Etc, etc, etc.
Different approach to more traditional clan/guild systems, but (hopefully) has a similar effect (as in, improving the game experience and satisfying the desires of all parties).
While the game is still in a state of development and until FD make clear their position on the topic of what to expect from the multiplayer aspects of the game, I think you can expect people to chuck ideas out relating to this topic they consider important. And I don't think FD are ever going to say "we won't improve the multiplayer experience".
Some things are much less likely to happen (large scale PVP being a good example - it's technically problematic before you even consider how desirable it is). Some things are almost certain (better friends management / better group controls relating to group mode).
But this isn't a static game and isn't going to remain the game that we bought. Already it's very different from the Premium Beta I purchased.
Yeah, that's true. But that's no excuse for not improving what is already there.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with much of what you are saying, I'd love to see the support for units, all of the goodies that I'm used to in many other games that support units, bits from here, bits from there, all combined for the ultimate unit supported experience. I'd be able to get my fellow Rats to jump over here in a heartbeat if that were to happen.
Thing is, I'm objective, despite what you may think, I am. I've worked in the game industry, I know what goes into making good multiplayer, worked on games with it, worked on games without it that were SUPPOSED to be good multiplayer(MW3 anyone), and I'm looking at Elite Dangerous, I'm looking at FD's resume of games(great games, people really underestimate them on that), the Elite pedigree and David's own stated opinions and desires for the game. I see a single player game that was forced to be multiplayer for marketing purposes, I see the bare minimum for multiplayer support, no unit support at all, and the lack of basics in the core game for unit support, and they all add up to not much for unit support in the future. You don't just tack that stuff on and have it work properly, look at Wings, prime example, it's functional, mostly, but that's the best thing I can say about it.
Players being able to JOIN the minor factions, that would be awesome, and it's fitting with the single player design aspects as well, so there's really no reason for it to not be added. It brings more to the PP aspects, it gives individual players a feeling of belonging, and it gives units more grip on the BGS, and it can be done without adding a single unit based tool to the game. It won't impact OTHER players directly as giving a unit control of base would, but it would still impact other players, just in ways that are indirect and therefore usually totally invisible to the majority. People play with the BGS now and think no one notices it, but it's noticed, the impact IS there and it's visible. MOST people probably don't notice it, they don't care so they don't pay attention. 'Oh, this system now has a civil war, ok, good, I can make more in a CZ' The fact that a group of players influenced the BGS to set that civil war up, not realized, not noticed, after all, there's systems all over the bubble where civil wars happen without any players ever being involved, why would they think it's a player created situation? THAT is something FD should add, letting us join the factions, minor and major.
More team support, yeah, it'd be great, it's nice to have, it's not required though, and Elite really isn't a game that's set up for or encourages unit play. Being able to join a faction, that alone would give more team support than this game has to date, and that's not even giving us anything FOR teams directly, which further shows exactly how Elite has no actual team support in it currently.
And large scale PvP is happening, it's been happening. It's difficult, it's not really good, but it's happening. I've said it multiple times, the PLAYERS don't need anything from the game to make teams possible. Elite doesn't support large scale PvP, but the folks in The Code, RoA, CTRL and many others have been making it happen anyway. Adding tools to help that, awesome idea, but the game just isn't designed for it, FD's not a multiplayer game developer and David's simply not hot on this, so...
Well one could say that a star might claim a win if a player is careless enough to let themselves overheat to destruction when fuel scooping, or an asteroid might claim a win if a pilot carelessly crashes into it....
