Why are features on INARA not in the game itself?

[Robert Maynard]

I also just realized the video that was linked is 2 years old.

A lot has changed with the game since that video was uploaded....

The quote was from E3 2015 comparatively more recent - with the same message.

The core game design is over three and a half years old - it's still in place....

The game is under long term development - it is unsurprising that it has been added to in the 17 months since release.

I would not bet too much on DBOBE's opinion changing that much on this topic, in my opinion of course.

 

[Hexcaliber]

Some features you want will never make it into the game, their omission from the game is by design. The reasons for this can be found in the design discussion archive discussing player organisation and grouping, and in the odd Q&A before launch.

Other than this reddit thread which leads you to a comment from David Braben on the issue, and some discussion on the reasons mentioned elsewhere, I have no interest in digging out futher links, so if you want to find them yourselves have at it.

TL;DR from the desgin disscusion archive. They do plan on adding slightly larger organised groups than the wings we have at present which will help friends organise and play together. These groups will have no formal leadership role, and in order to remove a member every one must vote to remove them. However, they want to avoid the situation where player organisations can lock down regions stopping others from going where they want; this is not that game. If you want larger scale organisation you will have to make do with third party sites and voip apps.



EDIT; thread only updated with more recent posts after I had posted, direct link to Davids comment made earlier today, but nm. Now I email my internet provider and ask them why a business account is being fed cached web pages.

 

[Sandmann]

The quote was from E3 2015 comparatively more recent - with the same message.

The core game design is over three and a half years old - it's still in place....

The game is under long term development - it is unsurprising that it has been added to in the 17 months since release.

I would not bet too much on DBOBE's opinion changing that much on this topic, in my opinion of course.

Considering he's making the game he couldn't make it 1984... he's been aware of and seen everything that's happened in gaming since then and if his opinion still hasn't changed in 32 years, it's unlikely to do so now I'd say.

 

[PiLhEaD]

There is *one* reason. Frontier left guild features off the feature list of the game - and DBOBE seems to dislike some of the gameplay facilitated by such features.

Yup, this chimes with what I'd heard before. I'd also felt, from several/many forum postings previously promoting guilds, that the overall community opinion was at best ambivilent.

I don't know of many people who wouldn't want better social and/or guild features in the game...

You may know many, but I'm not one of them.

some folks REALLY rock the whole INARA thing.... Check this CMDR's blog: http://inara.cz/cmdr/1355...

Had to laugh - that this is even a thing - reading the blog of someone playing a game...

 

[Iskariot]

I like the Inara.cz website, but the only thing I would like in-game are the Commanders Profile, with Logs. It really adds into the immersion IMHO

I am of the same opinion.
I do not care at all about the social stuff.
But having an in game commander's log that directly hooks into the star and system maps would fundamentally change the way I experience the game.

 

[Sandmann]

I am of the same opinion.
I do not care at all about the social stuff.
But having an in game commander's log that directly hooks into the star and system maps would fundamentally change the way I experience the game.

This^^^. Virtual +1 for you since I can't give you a real one right now.

 

[cmdr_Havalok]

Had to laugh - that this is even a thing - reading the blog of someone playing a game...

Unkind, just because it's not your type of enjoyment is no reason to rain on other's parade. A lot of creative people out there building their own content outside the game and sharing or asking others to join in. I don't do a lot of mining. Tried it. Was boring to me. I don't begrudge the people that do like it asking for additional features, like limpets and prospectors.

 

[Arithon]

A guild (by most definitions) is an in-game collective that controls both in-game currency and resources, pooled by the members of the group.

By that definition, it is something Frontier are adamantly against.

However on your other points

It allows you to create a Wing (ergo guild).

I would dearly like to see the player minor factions become something you could join and be identified with (a clan rather than a guild). They would need proper group management tools. In an ideal game, their own voice chat channels.

It allows you to create a Squadron / Flight, e.g. dedicate players to specific roles... e.g. a mining squadron, or pirates, or bounty hunting.

Personally, I don't see any point to this. I am a miner on Monday and bounty hunter on Tuesday. Will I be an explorer or trader on Wednesday? Why pigeon-hole myself?

It allows you to create Missions (e.g. events that other members can sign up to)

Community generated missions. Absolutely! For 1M Cr kill CMDR Kerrash! Station gets 5% - player setting mission pays total. (Sorry John)

It allows you to upload your Elite .log file to generate a Flight Plan (showing systems you went to, stations you docked at, interdictions etc)

Nice to have, especially when try to work out where that lucrative trade route from last week was. But to record AND KEEP that level of data for nearly 2 million players (Inara is only 18K). Well that adds costs.
If they could make it a feature that stores data locally, hell yeah!

It lets you set up a quick overview of your pilot (e.g. my signature below).

Isn't that the status TAB? We already have that.

It lets you form a coalition with other Wings (guilds) to work together.

Kind of straying from what games generally do. Nothing to stop in game chat organising things though.

It even has a logbook feature, where you can type in anything from a few words of what happened that day to a long entry of thoughts and ideas.... and you can share the logbook with others, or keep it private.

We're now in Facebook rather than Elite territory here. Sure, nice to have, but there are a billion things I'd rather see in game first.

It has nice discussion forums

Isn't that what these are? Do you really want web forums in the game? Does ANY game have this?

It has a cool gallery function where we can share screenshots.

I can't see any need for space-instagram. Maybe somebody wants it, but not me.

It has the latest news, community goals and even radio channels to listen to!

Galnet is already in game and still evolving. Who knows if the LaveRadio SideWinder will one day actually broadcast radio (ala GTA)?

In summary these things are good ideas for the most-part, but don't expect more than one or two to make it into the game for some time to come.

Inara is safe for now.

 

[Red Fox Four]

I honestly don't understand. If you don't care for the additional social part of the game then you are most likely playing in private group or solo anyhow so you have the gameplay experience you desire.

Why should that be a blocker for people in open play, or private groups for that matter, to have social features that encourage collaboration between more players than the current 4 ?

Because some are content with the current state of the game with the max 4 player wing should that be reason for it to be the be-all-end-all as far as social features for the game should go?

And note, with social features we aren't exclusively talking about massive guilds.

Customizable Logbook where you enter your own words.
Automatic Flight plan log.
Biography section with a few lines (e.g. max 140 words) of text that others can read.
Easier ways for more-than-just-4 groups of friends or clans to add eachother on friend lists.
Ability to set up events others can join from in-game.
Improved one-to-many communication rather than only having the peer-to-peer text chat and one-on-one voice comms.

And yes we can do all of that outside of the game, but it would be much better if it was done in-game, especially considering all data and information such as flight plans, plannet meetups and whatnot will be readily available when you log in rather than firing up multiple websites.

Heck, truth be told we could play the game without even having the current ability to form a wing in the game as well, and we simply communicate via Teamspeak to know where everyone else is and what they are shooting.

But no, we have the ability to form a wing in the game because it makes things easier, it allows you to play with friends in a more enjoyable way. So why stop there? We want more in-game ways to stay in touch with others, collaborate with others, plan things together, do activities together and more.

It frustrates me a bit since I get the feeling that in order to play this game and enjoy it we need to force ourselves to view the game a singleplayer experience when it has amazing potential to be so much more... and it already offers a full-blown singleplayer experience to people through solo play, yet offers near nothing when it comes to group play and socialization, which is a high expectation in any online game in this time and age.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Why should that be a blocker for people in open play, or private groups for that matter, to have social features that encourage collaboration between more players than the current 4 ?

Limited ressources.
If you check the wings on inara, you'll find a very small number of them have over 50ish members.
Considering there's a mile-long to-do list .. please put my "I want my FAS Coffemakers to make Coffee" somewhere there.

(and I collaborate with up to 6.000 players on CGs -shrug- no idea where the need to micro manage every member's idea comes from .. it's not like we have raid instances)

 

[Necronaught]

Like I mentioned earlier. All that is needed to greatly improve multi play is have the ability to join multiple wings together to form a squadron and a chat feature to go with it. So for example, along with local chat and wing chat there would be squadron chat and clan chat. If a feature to be able to form a clan within the game, just like Planetside's outfit feature, were to be implemented. There could also be corresponding radar colours depending on wing. if you were not in a wing with your clan, then the radar could show a different colour to those who are not in your clan.

These are reasonable features that would not hamper any body else's play. It would make large scale battles so much more fun.

 

[Sandmann]

I honestly don't understand. If you don't care for the additional social part of the game then you are most likely playing in private group or solo anyhow so you have the gameplay experience you desire.

Why should that be a blocker for people in open play, or private groups for that matter, to have social features that encourage collaboration between more players than the current 4 ?

Don't confuse "I don't want it, I have no interest in it" with "I don't want anyone else to have it", they're not the same thing. Assuming I could "turn the radio off" I don't care one little bit what sort of communications you have.

HOWEVER...

If the introduction of a new mechanic (say for example guilds) led to a new direction by which those who're not interested in the new mechanic would be disadvantaged in some significant way by their non-involvement in it, or if it were to alter the game's direction significantly from the one I bought into, then I -would- fight against it's introduction. The lack of a guild mechanism, and the focus on "one man in a spaceship" were big parts of my original interest in the game. I didn't buy Elite to play "Eve in a cockpit" or "Quake in spaceships" or "Call of Duty in space" etc, I bought it to play an up to date version of Elite.

So, if your "collaboration of more than four players" had zero impact on my perception of the game - then you go right ahead, collaborate to your heart's content... but if it structurally changed the direction the game headed, then no thanks.

 

[Dakron Nova]

Only recently I came across the website http://inara.cz/

After I registered and started using it I realized it has almost all the stuff that is missing in the game with respect to social tools and guilds.

• It allows you to create a Wing (ergo guild).
• It allows you to create a Squadron / Flight, e.g. dedicate players to specific roles... e.g. a mining squadron, or pirates, or bounty hunting.
• It allows you to create Missions (e.g. events that other members can sign up to)
• It allows you to upload your Elite .log file to generate a Flight Plan (showing systems you went to, stations you docked at, interdictions etc)
• It lets you set up a quick overview of your pilot (e.g. my signature below).
• It lets you form a coalition with other Wings (guilds) to work together.
• It even has a logbook feature, where you can type in anything from a few words of what happened that day to a long entry of thoughts and ideas.... and you can share the logbook with others, or keep it private.
• It has nice discussion forums
• It has a cool gallery function where we can share screenshots.
• It has the latest news, community goals and even radio channels to listen to!

So the real question is... why is NONE of this incorporated into the game itself?

Hats of to the guys/gals who set up INARA. It added a new level of depth to the game for me and it is great how it lets us create a Wing/guild that we can all be part of and where we can plan activities, share experiences and so forth in a more tangible manner.

But in all honesty, almost the entire website should be an ingame feature. Frontier needs to hire these INARA guys/gals and make it happen. It is a shame that we have to experience the game outside of the game. Heck, it took Frontier a year+ since it was suggested to add notes/bookmarks in the maps until it happened (well, soon to happen as it its part of the current engineers beta).

Many thanks to the INARA guys/gals for making my Elite experience better.

Frontier... learn from this!

Why do you think that ALL of it would be?

 

[DNA-Decay]

I don't get why it would be better in-game.

Firefox, chrome, Teamspeak, discord, slack, Reddit, player owned servers, off the shelf enjin sites, VK, Facebook, a thread or two on FDev, twitter, IRC, Wordpress, heck I wouldn't be surprised if there's a group that organise on Skype.

Just do it. Don't wait for FDev.

 

[Necronaught]

I don't get why it would be better in-game.

Firefox, chrome, Teamspeak, discord, slack, Reddit, player owned servers, off the shelf enjin sites, VK, Facebook, a thread or two on FDev, twitter, IRC, Wordpress, heck I wouldn't be surprised if there's a group that organise on Skype.

Just do it. Don't wait for FDev.

You don't get why having a decent friend or foe indicator in multiple wing battles would be helpful? You have heard of silent running? A centralised chat feature (not important, but could be useful) to type destinations and targets, since players come from all across the Earth and might not accurately understand what system or target to go to if spoken on TS. All to often I have to alt tab and read the chat box in teamspeak at destinations, since some of them are a to spell.

Not one argument can be made against adding clan features. Simple and useful and no it won't affect the other players, one bit.

 

[Deathwatch]

Limited ressources.
If you check the wings on inara, you'll find a very small number of them have over 50ish members.
Considering there's a mile-long to-do list .. please put my "I want my FAS Coffemakers to make Coffee" somewhere there.

(and I collaborate with up to 6.000 players on CGs -shrug- no idea where the need to micro manage every member's idea comes from .. it's not like we have raid instances)

Numbers listed on inara aren't reliable for example time of chaos, inara roster isnt even at 10 percent as its not a requirement.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Numbers listed on inara aren't reliable for example time of chaos, inara roster isnt even at 10 percent as its not a requirement.

Well, you can see them as unreliable or as "members actually interested in signing up to additional ressource sites".

Two sides of the coin.. while group leaders might actually want to micromanage each and every of their members, members might not actually want to be micromanaged, while still being part of a group.
And isn't ToC a multi-game playergroup? I suppose they do have their own group management site/software/TS etc., so offering some bare-bone tools in ED which have to be manually managed might not be as good as having an in-game API/Plug in to get their other tools into the game.

Simple and useful and no it won't affect the other players, one bit.

Oh, actually it would, if you watch some of Z4.Mafia's 4 vs. 20+ videos.
Having numeric superiority without clear friend/foe designation creates sufficient chaos that the smaller team is not instantly focus fired and the larger team actually has to have superior discipline and organization to leverage their numeric superiority.
Ish called strategy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not one argument can be made against adding clan features. Simple and useful and no it won't affect the other players, one bit.

The single, full, unambiguous and agreed scope of the term "clan features" would need to be viewed before arguments against adding them can be finalised.

 

[Red Fox Four]

Limited ressources.
If you check the wings on inara, you'll find a very small number of them have over 50ish members.
Considering there's a mile-long to-do list .. please put my "I want my FAS Coffemakers to make Coffee" somewhere there.

(and I collaborate with up to 6.000 players on CGs -shrug- no idea where the need to micro manage every member's idea comes from .. it's not like we have raid instances)

Well, to address first half of your reply... reason there aren't as many people on Inara is simply because a lot of people are unaware of it. Personally I wasn't made aware of it until very recently, and even in the few pages of this thread that has found Inara for the first time (and love it, cause it has many things they are really wanting in the game itself). So statement about low(ish) numbers isn't lack of interest in social features and larger-than-4-people-in-a-wing collaboration, but simply lack of exposure for Inara and people not finding it.

Speaking of collaboration as you mention that in conjunction with Community Goals.

Disclaimer: Before I lay out the answer to this one I want to make it clear that I am speaking in general terms about the CG's and collaboration and not saying it is relevant for you personally as you may very well be working together with 20 other players in Open Play to kill off competing players at the CG's. Just wanted to make that clear.

Are you really collaborating with others, or are you just fulfilling singleplayer oriented goals alongside others who just happen to be at the same location as a result of the CG and working completely independent from you?

I don't really call it collaboration when there is little, if any, communication between the involved parties.

Collaboration would be for a group of players to come together, decide to build an outpost on the surface of a planet outside of the bubble in an effort to create a forward operating base form where they can continue exploration deeper into to galaxy. The collaboration would be to agree where to set up such an outpost, the effort of all involved players to bring in required resources to set up the outpost and the continued efforts of the players to supply the outpost with necessary resources to keep it operative while simultaneously continuing their efforts towards the exploration which is the ulterior motivation for setting up the base in the first place.

Collaboration is a conscious cooperation between the involved players where they work as a team. Not a singleplayer effort completely isolated from all other involved parties.

To hear that Frontier is reluctant to allow such gameplay, and from the gist of it directly oppose the implementation of such larger collaboration possibilities for players it leaves me both disappointed and frustrated.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Well, to address first half of your reply... reason there aren't as many people on Inara is simply because a lot of people are unaware of it. Personally I wasn't made aware of it until very recently, and even in the few pages of this thread that has found Inara for the first time (and love it, cause it has many things they are really wanting in the game itself). So statement about low(ish) numbers isn't lack of interest in social features and larger-than-4-people-in-a-wing collaboration, but simply lack of exposure for Inara and people not finding it.

Well, that's exactly what I mean with "lack of interest". ED does not have an offline mode, so everyone playing it has access to the internet and all the wonders it brings.
I found inara (and eddb) even before the official forums (profile there: http://inara.cz/cmdr-achievements/13737?page=3 vs. profile here ) and joined the forums to support sites like inara, since they do offer so much more than simple in-game tools (which are always limited by platform GUI and input devices, whereas you can run 3rd party sites comfortably on your tablet).

I guess I am interested.

Speaking of collaboration as you mention that in conjunction with Community Goals.

Disclaimer: Before I lay out the answer to this one I want to make it clear that I am speaking in general terms about the CG's and collaboration and not saying it is relevant for you personally as you may very well be working together with 20 other players in Open Play to kill off competing players at the CG's. Just wanted to make that clear.

Are you really collaborating with others, or are you just fulfilling singleplayer oriented goals alongside others who just happen to be at the same location as a result of the CG and working completely independent from you?

I don't really call it collaboration when there is little, if any, communication between the involved parties.

Collaboration would be for a group of players to come together, decide to build an outpost on the surface of a planet outside of the bubble in an effort to create a forward operating base form where they can continue exploration deeper into to galaxy. The collaboration would be to agree where to set up such an outpost, the effort of all involved players to bring in required resources to set up the outpost and the continued efforts of the players to supply the outpost with necessary resources to keep it operative while simultaneously continuing their efforts towards the exploration which is the ulterior motivation for setting up the base in the first place.

Collaboration is a conscious cooperation between the involved players where they work as a team. Not a singleplayer effort completely isolated from all other involved parties.

To hear that Frontier is reluctant to allow such gameplay, and from the gist of it directly oppose the implementation of such larger collaboration possibilities for players it leaves me both disappointed and frustrated.

Well, I do work to reach the goals. Personal gains are completely insignificant.
I do collaborate with different players to reach common goals outside of official FD CGs, too.
If players don't use social hubs to communicate, I guess they are not interested in communication. If I would be interested in random communication, I'd use social hubs to communicate. Worked like that since 1995 with the awkward "who wants to chat" on CompuServe (in an online chatroom, obviously noone wants to chat ).
Frontier is not reluctant to allow social gameplay. But maybe players are not as interested as they claim they are.
Maybe they're interested in trodding along while someone else leads the way.
Maybe they're interested in leveraging their numeric superiority better.
Maybe they're even intersted in random social interaction, but expect the other players to take the first step (maybe I should create a dating tip website for lonely commanders ) ^^