Guilds in Elite Dangerous

[Ghostickles]

'at least not to start with'
Ya know he never says 'no guilds' out right, he doesn't even say 'no ownership of stations' outright. Maybe not in the works right now, but you never know what tomorrow may bring. That, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Why would the Industry Media Spokesman ask such a question in the first place?
Obvious much?
Have other games done the same as ED and... dare I say...changed direction?
I don't know, I'm too busy waiting for CQC.:

 

[tombrooks178]

PP is not "guilds", you are supporting an AI faction, not a clan leader.

There are some people who bought the game and are happy with it and there are others that are not, the people that are happy tend to be the one's that did some research before buying.

PS

If you think this one is a endless circle look here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=145309

There is a link in the first post to its predecessor which was 10k posts long, the MK2 I linked is at 8675 posts. In MK2 read posts 1 & 3 on page 1, they quote the devs thoughts on most of the things that are repeatedly "discussed" later.

The determining factor of if something is a guild or not is if the thing everyone is fighting for is human or not? Especially since the AI offers no help to them and players are leaning on other players on what to do next and not the AI.

The thread you linked to is my stay up thread for when I'm on night shift, it is by far way worse than this thread. The arguments coming from one side of that "debate" are hilarious. I wonder if the other side realizes at this point that they are being trolled yet.

 

[Vincent Starson]

I think this chap says it better than I could and he knows a bit more than me about space games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c;t=19m41s

Would it just be "a secondary friends list with a global chat channel", I doubt it. Adding "global chat" to the P2P network in game which could adversely affect the matchmaking. Or you could get teamspeak and make a website (these both worked pretty well in the games I played in guilds previously).

Then there is the fact it would take dev time away from things that are long overdue, for something that was never part of the plan.

He basically said "Not at first, no guilds" and gave good reasons why. If they add them now like how I mentioned, none of his worries would come true. Mainly because of the P2P instancing it's impossible to blockade systems and create Eve-like super powers. Guilds in this game would be much more limited in their possibilities, but it would be a welcome change for many.

I understand they're maybe worried that a 32+ player guild would have problems all being in the same instance, and how to properly handle that. That's for them to solve, but solutions are possible. Only 8 guild members per instance or something, who knows? I'm not a game designer, but I think Frontier is more than capable of making something great in this area. Global chat shouldn't be a problem, either.

Lastly, your point about dev time being taken away is just entitled nonsense. Remember, they are a business and if making guilds gives them more business and keeps players playing (and thus faces in front of the paint shop $$$) then it's very wise for them to implement guilds. They already have our money.

Guilds would keep players playing, lure in new players, and thus lengthening the life of the game for all players. A win-win situation, really.

1- Guild Player Online List. Similar to Friends list.
2- Guild Chat. Similar to local chat, but galaxy wide and to all guild members.
3- Guild Management Menu. Similar to Private group / Friends Management Menu.
4- Guild Identification. Similar to Powerplay tags or optional addions to commander names.

That's not too much dev time, because the framework for all of those items exist in the game already. It's not like adding guilds is going to cause Frontier to lose money, so it's really obvious what they should do. Add them!

 

[jabokai]

I understand they're maybe worried that a 32+ player guild would have problems all being in the same instance, and how to properly handle that. That's for them to solve, but solutions are possible. Only 8 guild members per instance or something, who knows? I'm not a game designer, but I think Frontier is more than capable of making something great in this area. Global chat shouldn't be a problem, either.

Can you imagine the bad press they'd get for this, compared to proper client-server games that don't have such low limits? Introducing a new feature that is much less, and crippled from the start, than other games is not good PR.

Also, you say "global chat should be no problem" - What makes you say that? One thing FD has been focused on all the time is cutting down bandwidth use to and from their servers. They eventually relent where it's critical, and to combat cheating, but we must assume this is still a goal, since nobody is paying a subscription. Seeing as instances are P2P, then chat in an instance is probably "not a problem", but I suspect that global chats and guilds chats would be client/server - something they would presumably want to avoid.

Lastly, your point about dev time being taken away is just entitled nonsense. Remember, they are a business and if making guilds gives them more business and keeps players playing (and thus faces in front of the paint shop $$$) then it's very wise for them to implement guilds. They already have our money.

And saying "if making guilds" is just speculative nonsense, backed up by what? A few posts on this thread? A gut feeling? "Well loads of successful games do it"?

 

[Firestarter]

From a game developers point of view adding guild content to a game can encourage game play. The more the guild members play the more bonuses the guild gets. Some games allow guild members to temporarily invite non members to enjoy the privileges of their guild for that game session when they are in the same group.

 

[RosaMaus]

Personally, I see no need for guild content at all, though it might be nice if player groups could instigate CGs that would then be open to all. All I want is group comms, identification/badges and locations.

 

[Vincent Starson]

And saying "if making guilds" is just speculative nonsense, backed up by what? A few posts on this thread? A gut feeling? "Well loads of successful games do it"?

The point I'm making is that everyone who doesn't want it has already bought the game, and is voicing their opinion in this thread. If they added guilds, they wouldn't "lose" a sale from that group of Negative Nancys and Debbie Downers. They would however be able to gain sales from players who haven't bought the game because it's lacking guilds.

They can do market studies and decide what's best for the business and for the game. With or without guilds, this game will be around for a long time, so it is really a no brainer imo to add basic guild groups to the game. Calling them Squadrons would be cool. I'm going to continue cheering for guilds though.

In the end, they'll do what they want. That's all there is to it.

 

[Roybe]

Just stopping by to say how happy I am that groups are getting some love in the upcoming announcement.

It will probably be a minor addition...but anything that allows for a more streamlined social experience is a huge improvement to me!

 

[CYB34]

I have a big list of friends and I want to broadcast a message to 10 of them or more.

I realize it's not possible and I open Teamspeak to look for them there.
I find out most of them are playing ETS2 Multiplayer.
I join in and have a ton of fun with my wheel.

Problem solved.

Keep making people ALT+TAB, it works wonders from a UX PoV.

 

[Robert Maynard]

News from one of this weekends Lavecon attendees:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=165775

.... and a little later in the thread:

More support for player groups? As in Guilds or PP?

Having spoke to Sandro last night, definitely not Guilds.

 

[jabokai]

Yeah, definitely not Guilds but hopefully Outfits, Fleets, Corporations or Squadrons

Nice try!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah, definitely not Guilds but hopefully Outfits, Fleets, Corporations or Squadrons

.... or possibly management of Private Groups, who knows....

 

[Ghostickles]

NPC Chaperones, hooray.

 

[medwyn]

Meanwhile I throw in a few more arguments why guild play would be a big step toward a great game.
All based on player created/player owned content.

Would I do a supply run for an NPC faction (like in PP) ?
- No, it's all fake. There's no real need for that supplies, whether I do the run or not does not matter. I'm not attached to any of the "ideologies" of the powers, they don't have a goal at all, they are not my creation and I don't care about them.
Would I do a supply run for a player driven organization?
- Yes if I'm a member - that supply run would help to build up or maintain a cooperative environment I most likely agree with (otherwise I would not be part of it). Without my help the group's resources for a certain action or upkeep would be lacking so my action matters.

Would I escort a trade ship of an NPC faction?
- I don't see why would I do that if not just for the sake of it: whether the trader reaches it's destination or not does not matter, there's no effect taken on anything I try to get connected with (stock levels, faction supplies, etc.)
Would I escort a trade ship of a player faction?
- As a member, yes - it's huge fun to arrange a convoy or a caravan between important locations to move materials which has an effect on the group's air of living (resources to build up something, food supplies to keep the facilities running, fuel to build up a redistribution network and hubs, etc.)

(May go on later with this list but I have to run now, sorry)

 

[BurnyBurns]

Having spoke to Sandro last night, definitely not Guilds.

Which is like giving those who'd like to play in a guild the middle finger, considering people have been asking for the feature (295 pages didn't write themselves because nobody wants guilds).

When something is requested or asked for over and over again, usually the message any sensible developer should take away is, that there is a desire for the feature. It doesn't matter if the feature is controversial. In that case, they have to find a solution with which both sides of the argument can live.

Yet, Frontier's stubborn stance on guilds is definitely not a classy treatment of the issue and is foremost among the very few points where I'm decidedly unimpressed by them.

 

[Mohrgan]

Which is like giving those who'd like to play in a guild the middle finger, considering people have been asking for the feature (295 pages didn't write themselves because nobody wants guilds).

When something is requested or asked for over and over again, usually the message any sensible developer should take away is, that there is a desire for the feature. It doesn't matter if the feature is controversial. In that case, they have to find a solution with which both sides of the argument can live.

Yet, Frontier's stubborn stance on guilds is definitely not a classy treatment of the issue and is foremost among the very few points where I'm decidedly unimpressed by them.

You fail to recognize or acknowledge all of the opposition that helped keep these pages filling.

 

[BurnyBurns]

You fail to recognize or acknowledge all of the opposition that helped keep these pages filling.

[...]It doesn't matter if the feature is controversial. In that case, they have to find a solution with which both sides of the argument can live.[...]

I'm aware of the opposition and adressed it.

 

[Mohrgan]

It doesn't matter if the feature is controversial. In that case, they have to find a solution with which both sides of the argument can live.

That's only wishful thinking. I have seen FD, many times, refute guild style mechanisms. And, recently as well. Why is it reasonable to expect them to change their stance? They have a strong following that support their decision. At least as strong as the pro-guild movement. Elite has been made, so far, to have an independent vision. Dragging elements into that vision should be done carefully, and slowly. This game doesn't need to be just like all of the other games out there. It will stand on it's own merits.

 

[Cadoc]

That's only wishful thinking. I have seen FD, many times, refute guild style mechanisms. And, recently as well. Why is it reasonable to expect them to change their stance? They have a strong following that support their decision. At least as strong as the pro-guild movement. Elite has been made, so far, to have an independent vision. Dragging elements into that vision should be done carefully, and slowly. This game doesn't need to be just like all of the other games out there. It will stand on it's own merits.

An argument could be made that all those "anti-guild" people may complain, but they will not have their enjoyment of the game lessened if guild features are released. I've seen some pretty outlandish scenarios floating around ("all high-profit trade routes will be camped by griefers!"), but realistically it won't make much difference to an independent pilot. At the same time time, not having those features *does* lessen the enjoyment of the game of those who are in player groups.

 

[Mohrgan]

An argument could be made that all those "anti-guild" people may complain, but they will not have their enjoyment of the game lessened if guild features are released. I've seen some pretty outlandish scenarios floating around ("all high-profit trade routes will be camped by griefers!"), but realistically it won't make much difference to an independent pilot. At the same time time, not having those features *does* lessen the enjoyment of the game of those who are in player groups.

It's been outlined many times how a guild mechanic has affected many games. To say people that don't want corps won't be impacted is farcicle. Let's have a look at the announcement FD have hinted at. They have teased about some new feature set to help player groups. This should show how FD intends to handle the issue. I will remind you that they have, once again, ruled out guilds. I have faith in FD.