- Guilds are not in the spirit of Elite. (Because humans never form any groups of course, certainly not in the 4th millenium...?)
- Global chat would destroy immersion. (Because all the credit sellers in a game without convenient credit or item transfer would ruin it and talking to people is totally overrated in an MMO...?)
- CQC is not part of Elite's world. (Because it's not Frontier having the last say on what is canon and not in Elite's universe, business-motivated or not, but us and CQC is a separate CoD kiddy shooter with no relation to Elite...?)
- Instant ship transfer is not consistent with the game's world. (Because a version of transfer with artificial delay, destroying the "quality" part of that QoL feature is more easy on your selective immersion, while instant pilot transfer and ship rebuy upon ship destruction is totally ok...?)
- ...
Really?
Even as a non-guild and very casual player, I would love guilds to be formally represented in Elite's game world. Guild logos on ships and people visibly acting and being represented as guilds? Cool in my book. Would add to the believability of an MMO like world, such as no realistically possible AI behaviour and BG sim in this game ever will for me. In the same vein, I would absolutely love global and inter-system (meaning inter-instance!) chat. This is sold as an MMO-like game, so let me communicate with people properly! If I don't want to, I'm playing Solo anyway. I also really don't mind Frontier trying to push CQC (successfully or not) and adding it to the pilot's federation ranks. Instant ship transfer to the station you're currently docked in for an appropriate sum of credits (based on ship value and distance)? Don't know when Frontier learned about non-lifetime-wasting-game-design, but I'll take it. Gladly! And more of that as well, wherever I can get it. We can produce fighters in our ships? Hey Frontier, I'd love if you to apply a bit of that convenience design to bloody heat sinks, limpets and SRVs!
Going by the length of the concerned threads, among all the opposition there might be one,
possibly two other people with a similar attitude as I have to those additions. I'm not that alone in my basement, am I?
The thing that really gets me and that all the people arguing the cases listed at the beginning seem to have in common: They're trying to argue
against/prevent certain additions or changes to be made to the game
for other people. I don't care which mental gymnastics are employed to argue the individual cases, but at the center of the argument is always a train of thought similar to:
"
I don't like it, so please don't add it to the game".
And yes, in it's essence "That's not immersive" is the very same argument, due to the implied "to me" at the end and immersion being associated with "good", but also being highly subjective and
very, very selective. Here's the thing: You already got what you wanted. After all, it's not in the game currently. Did it ever occur to you, that there are other people out there (paying customers as well), who bloody well would love any of those features or would simply not mind their addition at all? Why should they not have it, while you on the other hand have to get what you want? Especially if it's about functional additions, e.g. instant ship transfer for ingame credits. Why should they have to play
your vision of the Elite universe and Elite's game design, which lacks all of those features or makes them artificially inconvenient, because
your feeling of immersion or personal RP/space game simulation fantasy can't cope otherwise?
Here's a suggestion (it's very intentionally polemic):
If feature X is not compatible with your immersion and vision of Elite?
More power to you! Open a Group, named "Anti-X", invite everybody who doesn't like X in
their Elite and ask them to not use X. Instant ship transfer? Not on your fantasy space sim RP watch! Mandate all the members of your group to not use it and kick anyone if you ever catch them at doing it anyway! Same for hypothetical global chat, guilds, station control, base building, [insert possilby new feature here] if any of it is to ever implemented.
In all seriousness, that seems like more democratic solution, doesn't it? Let Open be what the word implies: "
open" and inclusive, while any exclusions to the game world's rules and imposed RP requirements are limited to groups whose members
voluntarily commit to them. Let the discussion of new proposed or announced features be concerned more with what's potentially a good and realistic implementation of that feature, actually servicing the needs of players who want those features, rather than be polluted with how much angst you have, that the feature might destroy your immersive fantasy space game simulation RP.
And just so forming such groups is effective and because I perceived the suggestion
to fence player guilds in into their own mode as such a particular unconstructive low point in these discussions (although the poster probably tried to be constructive, still it reeks of "naughty, naughty humans, don't want to see you forming group in MY game!" *rollseyes*), here's a constructive suggestion for Frontier:
Add a feature to toggle and configure the "Group" mode, to both in- and exclude certain features where realistic and applyable. Ship-transfers? Toggle-able! Fighter construction in ships? Toggle-able! Hypothetical guild names and decals on stations/ships? Toggle-able! Hypothetcial global/system chats? Toggle-able! CQC pilot rank? Toggle-able! Players damaging player ships? Toggle-able! This is what sub-groups are normally perfect for.
Open?!
Open for all!
