The New Guilds and Player Owned Stations Discussion Thread.

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

This already happens with the Reddit groups. This isn't something that is going to just be avoided. You can work to stop it in the game sure, but you can't put your hands over your eyes and ignore that it's happening.

I'm aware that this is already going on. That's the reason why I don't want anything in this game that would make doing such things easier and that would give them some sort of legitimation.

And I think you're just being silly when you say its a euphanism for large group ganking small group. You're blowing it out of proportion because from the sounds of it you've only experienced the bad side of this equation.

No, never been at the receiving end of "emergent gameplay". I just happen to watch closely and to remember all the things that happened in other games where players wanted "emergent gameplay" on a PvP server.

Considering that the only currently possible interaction (beside chat) between CMDRs in Elite Dangerous is combat I think it's not so silly to assume that giving more power and advantages to group players will result in more combat. I won't bet on consensual combat between two fair playing groups of honorable gentlepersons.
Players in guilds will have their fun - if their guild is big enough.

 

[VladtheImpaler]

No surprise there - these guild threads always go that way



The problem is that group activity and station control are a natural pairing. I believe any constructive idea needs to address both as groups will inevitably want to own stations so it's best to address the matter at the start. The solution I'd suggest is to allow limited control as opposed to outright ownership. There is a perfect mechanism to enable this already in the game - faction support at stations.

The current groups mechanism could be expanded to accommodate player factions that operate in the same way as NPC minor factions and allow a group of players to coordinate their efforts towards ingame goals of their own choosing by sponsoring missions and other content. Virtual station control would happen through accumulation of faction support. Individual rewards of such station control could include subsidies and bonuses precisely like CGs deliver, and the mechanics could be structured so that non-faction players could participate in the same way as they do via NPC missions. The faction group bonuses could include the ability to sponsor or direct the construction of new stations at specified locations - but not actual ownership of said stations. The system authority could be preserved as an independent force not under player faction control.

Use the existing game mechanics and systems with slight expansions to enable in-game organizations that are in keeping with the "feel" of ED. Think of a player faction as being like a persistent, open-ended, multi-threaded CG that is managed by a group of players. It's activities would be open to any player in any mode although the player faction members would operate exclusively in open mode.

Maybe this is the compromise we've been seeking? I like it. But what if the system's minor faction my group wants has a horrible name that nobody likes?

 

[medwyn]

How interesting what "strategies" we can see in a thread like this.
There's a poll with currently 1184 votes on it and a visible tendency.
The guild-question is hot as always which clearly shows the two emotions it can be dealt with: the NEED and the DENIAL.

The need-side is easy: expressing a need is a clear and straight forward thing.
The denial-side is more likely in trouble when the need is genuine but they also evolve with "strategies" like:
- arguing against the guild-features assuming it would ruin the game
- arguing against it in the name of "the vision" (which has already been and will be revised several times) regressing to a non-existent fundament
- denying the legitimity of the poll in two ways: whether it's representative or not ("vocal minority-concept") or if it's valid or not based on unconfirmed numbers of "insignificant" forum accounts (what a sharp metagaming )
- taking cover behind outdated FD statements on guilds
- trying to achieve the thread to be closed ("it's circular")
- trying to harden the concept that guilds here in ED can only be like in EVE Online NECESSARILY and there's no other way
- using ED's current architecture as a shield why it's impossible to make guild-play anyway
- invalidating forum users' opinions based on assumptions regarding to his/her personality ("look at his earlier posts...")

And so on.
And still: the poll shows what it shows, the thread had grown 65+ pages already in a day with nearly 1000 comments - it may show the fact that a need can not be effectively treated with strategies of denial.
Regardless of what FD thinks about this, the phenomenon is there. If there's a need, it is hard or impossible to extinguish it with any "reasoning" I listed above.

What I miss here is the open mind which is essential for a discussion. I accept that some people can not see how guilds could work on the benefit of the whole playerbase.
But just because one can not see it, it doesn't mean it can not work: so saying "therefore I say no" is simply a denial not a constructive addition.
I also accept that people had previous experience of guild play in other games and they automatically transfer their emotions developed there to here. With a bit of consciousness it may be recognizable that ED is a different game and a different architecture: there are plenty of possibilities to create a set of rules and contents which can make people behave differently and play another way. Again: open mind.

These threads are long and hot for a few reasons. Two of them are: 1. there's the need for detailed group play and 2. there's the denial mindset which judges something without even think about it further or try it here.
Yes or no are premature before we ask the question "how?" - and that's where we can be constructive.

 

[Cosmo]

Can you link to the source of the "70% of players are already inactive" - it sounds like it would be worth a read.

Frontier doesn't release official stats, but the majority of players in the friends list are inactive who've been around since the early days.
See this post in the subreddit This is why the vets feel like the game is dying... (9:30pm Eastern), link.

Players already add emergent content - what unique content would Guilds bring? (other than inter-Guild wars)

Guilds will add long-term goals for large groups of players. It will take much work to grow a guild, manage a station, claim and defend systems. Each guild caters to specific kinds of players such as industrial, combat, pirates, role players. Interaction among guilds (cooperation, diplomacy, war) will generate scenarios and player interaction on a higher level that auto-generated content or the AI major factions can't do.

 

[M00ka]

And that's where we're back to it doesn't have to be that way.

This is also why I'm getting frustrated. Very few people are advocating EVE-style play. In fact we know that DB and Frontier explicitly don't want that, so it's never going to happen. It's not a valid point of debate.

Guild doesn't have to own the station (in fact they shouldn't, imo). They certainly shouldn't 'own' a system. Eve's guilds don't have to be the same as Elite's guilds. Conflating player ownership, Eve online and the arguments and suggestions being put forward in this thread are what's keeping it running (mostly) in circles.

.
You are right of course, DB and Frontier don't want Elite to become Eve, DB also stated that he doesn't want Guilds (or whatever they are called). So why are we having this conversation?

That's why i proposed the so-called "guild" should be the existing minor faction that players can pledge their allegiance to. Technically, the player is still an employee, spreading the minor faction influence; and if they commit crime, then the system authorities will still hunt them down like those minor faction NPC with wanted status getting hunted down by the system authority NPC.

.
REP to you, I like this idea. The Guild wannabes get their cadre (but they really can't do anything), everyone should be happy.
.
I actually created a thread on this a while ago, asking if players would like the opportunity to take the role of System Security and the few that responded liked the idea. What can I say, great minds think alike lol

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And that's where we're back to it doesn't have to be that way.

This is also why I'm getting frustrated. Very few people are advocating EVE-style play. In fact we know that DB and Frontier explicitly don't want that, so it's never going to happen. It's not a valid point of debate.

Guild doesn't have to own the station (in fact they shouldn't, imo). They certainly shouldn't 'own' a system. Eve's guilds don't have to be the same as Elite's guilds. Conflating player ownership, Eve online and the arguments and suggestions being put forward in this thread are what's keeping it running (mostly) in circles.

Here's why this thread isn't suited for this discussion because of the ambiguity of what people mean when they talk about Guilds.

Some do want owned stations, complete with control over commodity market, additions, the works.
Others want to have a system to communicate with their fellow members.

I suggest someone who isn't at work and shouldn't be posting here anyway to create a thread to discuss in what shape or form they want guilds to be implemented. Otherwise this will never get anywhere near a hint of closure.

 

[Talarin]

The problem is that group activity and station control are a natural pairing. I believe any constructive idea needs to address both as groups will inevitably want to own stations so it's best to address the matter at the start. The solution I'd suggest is to allow limited control as opposed to outright ownership. There is a perfect mechanism to enable this already in the game - faction support at stations.

The current groups mechanism could be expanded to accommodate player factions that operate in the same way as NPC minor factions and allow a group of players to coordinate their efforts towards ingame goals of their own choosing by sponsoring missions and other content. Virtual station control would happen through accumulation of faction support. Individual rewards of such station control could include subsidies and bonuses precisely like CGs deliver, and the mechanics could be structured so that non-faction players could participate in the same way as they do via NPC missions. The faction group bonuses could include the ability to sponsor or direct the construction of new stations at specified locations - but not actual ownership of said stations. The system authority could be preserved as an independent force not under player faction control.

Use the existing game mechanics and systems with slight expansions to enable in-game organizations that are in keeping with the "feel" of ED. Think of a player faction as being like a persistent, open-ended, multi-threaded CG that is managed by a group of players. It's activities would be open to any player in any mode although the player faction members would operate exclusively in open mode.

I disagree that group activity and station control are a natural pairing - but I do agree that there is a middle ground between outright ownership and control and the current state of play.

Associations (which is how I'm going to refer to Guilds from now on) pledging to minor factions is exactly what I hoped PowerPlay would be. It would be brilliant, it would fit inside the game structures and it would be non-intrusive to those players who don't care for social play AND would provide a vehicle for those players to join up with players they've never meet before.

Also it means that ownership and control of assets stays with the minor faction, not the guild - so a lot of concern about anti-social controls ("you can't dock here") goes out the window.

I (and others) suggested it before PowerPlay and seems the ideal compromise between the yeas and nays.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Frontier doesn't release official stats, but the majority of people in the friends list are inactive of many players who've been around since the early days.
See this post in the subreddit This is why the vets feel like the game is dying... (9:30pm Eastern), link.
.

Anecdotal evidence.

 

[Hellhawk666]

...
I think it's a fiction that you can implement guilds without affecting the gameplay for those that don't want to take part.
...

I agree entirely if the type of organization is limited to the typical MMO "Guild". However player factions, as I've outlined in a previous post, would increase the choice and diversity of missions to non-faction players. Rival factions competing for the control of a station would result in a huge increase of missions. The system could also be implemented so that it was in the interest of players in a faction to protect and encourage their non-faction supporters and confine their aggressive interactions to rival faction members.

 

[Nagual]

The bottom line is, FDev will or won't do something. It won't be based on demands from the public, it will be based on their plan for the game. Their plan may change overtime or it may not. Polls are fairly useless in that regard. Polls are not a referendum, nor anything other than to say "at this time, these people thought this". I would like to see much better intra-player tools but not traditional guilds or clans etc.

 

[Ghostickles]

Anecdotal evidence.

My friends list looks about the same. Must be contagious, them anecdotes. I can post it too, if you like.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My friends list looks about the same. Must be contagious, them anecdotes. I can post it too, if you like.

Still anecdotal evidence.

I provided a link so you can read what it means

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include: "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"

 

[Ghostickles]

FD have the answers we seek, good luck with that

 

[Cosmo]

Anecdotal evidence.

I can't check the official server stats. Your short replies don't prove anything. Show me your counter anecdotal evidence.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

FD have the answers we seek, good luck with that

Well, since they make the decisions, it's in the right hands

I can't check the official server stats. Your short replies don't prove anything. Show me your counter anecdotal evidence.

I won't, since my position is: I don't know.

As should yours be

 

[PhazonAran]

My position on guilds is quite simple.
You want a guild tag ? Have them. You want a guild chat ? Why not ? (add power specific chats too). You want guild only content ? Hell no. Being in a guild should not be a requirement to access content. Most of the MMOs already do it. We don't need Elite to do it too.

 

[Eggtastico]

I think where guilds will help, is actually finding a group of players with the same ideas & goals.
its all very well having group play, but your kind of limited in finding players to play with - or the same people on a consistent basis.

It would be start.
Also, building space stations would be cool. A proper 'Community Goal' for that guild. If it says you needed X resources, then off everyone goes collecting like ants.
Obviously some of them rare items are needed that can only be got by mining or stealing or be lucky enough to find.
There would be stages of progression, so it would be relatively easy to build a basic station (maybe something that would translate in to 250 hours if a single person tried!) - but a lot harder to get outfitters, trade merchant, shipyard, etc. to your station. IE this could be done in Tiers & viewable similar to how a CG is currently done.
Dont forget, these items would need to be donated - so if you go off & buy 100 tons of gold, then its a money sink. If upkeep is not kept, then the station declines & may reduce a level. Any credits collected are not for re-distributing. IE it is not a way to get rich!

You may even want to start with needing a certain Ship that is built from there & can only accept medium docking bays. Large docking bays could come later at a different Tier Level.
This comes in line with upkeep money sink. However, these can be offset by trading goods, outfitting, new ship purchases at the guild station.

Each guild place could have a RES for PvP combat. Guilds could wage war on each other - but keep it purely for fun. I would hesitate on introducing a player driven economy where guilds can make credits.
Thats been done rather successfully with EVE - and this is a different game to eve. However, nothing in game should be unreachable to the non guilded person who likes to play alone, compared to a person in a guild.

 

[Ghostickles]

Yeah, I'm trolling now, wait and see mode again. Things move along in their own time, here's to hoping it works out best all around.
The poll and topic, late and short, imo.
FD already has a plan.

 

[Hellhawk666]

The bottom line is, FDev will or won't do something. It won't be based on demands from the public, it will be based on their plan for the game.

True, but we know some of the devs do scan the forums and this is our best chance to express opinions, some of which they may take on board for consideration.

 

[medwyn]

The bottom line is, FDev will or won't do something. It won't be based on demands from the public, it will be based on their plan for the game. Their plan may change overtime or it may not. Polls are fairly useless in that regard. Polls are not a referendum, nor anything other than to say "at this time, these people thought this". I would like to see much better intra-player tools but not traditional guilds or clans etc.

Here's another "the poll does not matter really"-approach.
Yes, FD will or will not do something but their plan on the game WILL be based on the public requests (or at least if they want revenues as a business...)