We need the ability to form in-game clans

[Jex =TE=]

you guys do know it is not the alleged 15 posters you need to convince right?

DB said years ago, he did not like guilds and would not be supporting them, at least not in the usual sense, its is them you need to convince.

OP stated ED NEEDS clans. I disagree as do many others, no need to get your panties in a bunch over it however, its not like I get the final say.

I never said anything about these 15 posters and yes, I know DB said he would not be supporting clans but DB can also be wrong. In an age where we're a lot more connected and want to game together, to leave out support for MP is shocking and who's getting their knickers in a twist - the whole point of a forum is to discuss ideas and call out bad arguments and promote good arguments or points raised

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

I never said anything about these 15 posters and yes, I know DB said he would not be supporting clans but DB can also be wrong. In an age where we're a lot more connected and want to game together, to leave out support for MP is shocking and who's getting their knickers in a twist - the whole point of a forum is to discuss ideas and call out bad arguments and promote good arguments or points raised

Not wrong, he changed his mind.

Intelligent people do that. When they see new data they revise their position to better align to reality.

More rigid people tend to get upset that the cheese was moved and get out the torches and pitchforks.

 

[Ian Phillips]

I'll get the bread - Fondue ?

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

I'll get the bread - Fondue ?

Mmm.... Fondue....

*drool*

 

[Bacalao]

The reason ? It's simple.

I love how often the various and diverse threads pop up explaining the reason a thriving game is failing and/or dying, losing players, etc and how the reason is always, succinct, simple and completely based around a pet feature the OP has.
-
I don't think we ever need player controlled assets beyond our vessels and I believe DB and company feel the same way (but we'll see!), there are plenty of games that let you do that. Eve has one version (where they give you considerable power and need to be defended from other players, and it's a huge time sink), WoW has another version (where you have this big time sink to babysit but that doesn't really need defending and grants only trivial bonuses/conveniences), Fallout has another version (which is just another giant time sink, mini game). I don't want to see either in ED, not because they aren't fun, they just don't fit. What I do want to see is the ability to "pledge" to a minor faction. Similar-ish to power play, but not really, much more transient.
-
For example, it would be nice if when ROA or Code or BBfa, FFVII, WWE, DFTPP and the other various acronymed player groups want to all have big scale battles or hang out in systems, etc. They could mark themselves as a member of the faction, they'd show up as friendly to each other in stations and supercruise and instances. There wouldn't be any wing benefits, you could still commit crimes against each other, but it would allow them to have the big PvP battles and distinguish each side and just generally declare what role you're playing at the moment. Or just to join a faction like the hutton truckers (not sure if these guys are a real minor faction in game yet, but they need to be if they aren't) to affiliate yourself with each other more officially for one of their convoys.
-
There could be a variety of other beneficial mechanics that have nothing to do with coordinated multiplayer as well. I'd like to be able to "pledge" to a minor faction and do work for them, maybe ensure I get more missions on the bulletin board for them specifically instead of a random smattering from all factions in the system. Major faction bounties cashed in would count toward my standing with and the influence level of my pledged faction (rather than the controlling faction). Authority vessels might treat me differently(more lenient or more strict depending on the ethos), new longer term mission variants (patrols, VIP escorts, guard duty) might be available (I actually wouldn't mind hanging out around a station in a viper running scans and issuing fines to players and/or NPCs from time to time). Over time other benefits might be derived from being loyal to a specific faction beyond the never decaying "allied" status (rare commodity availability, high payout/risk mission, minor outfitting discounts). Plus it would be nice to pop into a system in open or group and see that another commander happens to be working for my same faction, lots of role play/immersion opportunity there. Again, the point isn't necessarily to become highly invested in a single faction, we have power play for that, this is a much more temporary affiliation that would hopefully lend some convenience and richness to the game.
-
Too often I visit a system with a faction I want to help grow and find that they have one courier mission on the bulletin board, I'd like a way to work for them even if they aren't a station controlling faction other than murdering the opposition or waiting/logging to get a board refresh.

 

[Vingtetun]

Im sure this topic has come up before, but I'm throwing my 2 cents in here. Hoping enough people will agree to this to change the Dev's minds and actually get this thing happening.

The Backstory :
I know quite a few people who have bought Elite Dangerous, played it for a week or 2, and never played it again. The reason ? It's simple. While the game has the ability to form 'wings', it is still pretty much a solo playing game. The only teamwork involved is to fly together and shoot other ships.
I am part of an online gaming community and in 1 of our catch-ups, the topic of ED came up and many people said they stopped playing for this reason.
Some great ideas came up during the discussion though and thought I would share them and hoping generate enough interest in the idea.

Ideas :
With the introduction of Horizons, make it possible to form clans/groups/guilds/gangs/outfits where we are given a small outpost base on some random planet. Then allow these groups to collect resources, research base defense weapons and ultimately build their base into something more powerful. Allow modules (eg, extra landing pads), to be researched (via the collection of certain commodities) and built.
Put an upkeep on these bases as well (eg, consumes x amount of food every few days).

This will attract more players to the game, and make it a lot more involved. It will give groups the sense of accomplishment and a goal towards something bigger than themselves.

What do you guys think ?

I think that the 300 ships working together on the Mapor convoy, 3200 that worked together over a week to do the Hutton CG, the hundred or so that joined the viper vs Cobra battle against the code and the 40 nutters working together in a race to take some rares to Sag A via 18 other locations tell me that PwP gameplay is alive and well.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can't rep you again but this sums up my thoughts on the ridiculous arguments being flung around this thread. Basically, "I don't like it so nobody can have it!!"

It's pathetic.

Is it more pathetic than labeling all counter arguments as "I don't like it so nobody can have it!!" Instead of addressing them?

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

I love how often the various and diverse threads pop up explaining the reason a thriving game is failing and/or dying, losing players, etc and how the reason is always, succinct, simple and completely based around a pet feature the OP has.
-

I used to play a small MMORPG. The RP community paid for a separate server and they elected me to run the server as the Mod.

I took suggestions, crafted rules, and then enforced those rules and the dev tweaked the settings to support those rules.

Over the course of 3 months, the online average went from 60 to .5 on the server. Why?

Because when you give players what they want, they don't play. Go figure that one out, I can't.

So I had the Dev reset all the configs back to vanilla, and announced the reset. Server population started to bounce back and people had fun.

People claim what they want is what they want, but at least in my one specific case, people did not want it once they had it.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Not wrong, he changed his mind.

Intelligent people do that. When they see new data they revise their position to better align to reality.

More rigid people tend to get upset that the cheese was moved and get out the torches and pitchforks.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said he can be wrong and he can. I didn't insinuate he was stupid either. I was very careful with how I worded it because it's not a fact that the game requires MP support - I could be wrong about that.

 

[EValve]

Because when you give players what they want, they don't play. Go figure that one out, I can't.

I can hint towards a valid reasoning for that.

The people on the forums are a minority. When you crafted rules and enforced these ( Restrictions ) you adhered to this minority without the majority's consent.
The more you tweaked and restricted, the more it leaned towards one specific desire and neglected the rest.

You didn't give "players" what they wanted, you gave some players what they wanted.
But since the topic of this thread has nothing to do with restrictions I feel this example is a little off subject and inadequate.

 

[Bacalao]

I used to play a small MMORPG. The RP community paid for a separate server and they elected me to run the server as the Mod.

I took suggestions, crafted rules, and then enforced those rules and the dev tweaked the settings to support those rules.

Over the course of 3 months, the online average went from 60 to .5 on the server. Why?

Because when you give players what they want, they don't play. Go figure that one out, I can't.

So I had the Dev reset all the configs back to vanilla, and announced the reset. Server population started to bounce back and people had fun.

People claim what they want is what they want, but at least in my one specific case, people did not want it once they had it.

I think it is because it is boring, it's like reading a book or short story you wrote, you know the ending, the characters, etc. As the writer you have the satisfactions from creation, but if you're a reader and you know the whole thing, the story will be boring. Players get the game tailor made to their tastes and suddenly there is nothing new to discover, nothing to work around. It isn't interesting because it came from their heads and it was probably better in there anyway.
-
That isn't a really big problem with a community this big and diverse, but I'm really glad the Devs flat out ignore a lot of the stuff we come up with, particularly stuff that I come up with. If they however can look at the concept I'm expressing and glean something interesting to implement from it, that's great! I'd have never come up with the SCB changes they did, I thought about some aspects of it, but the way they are melding it with heat sinks, hull reinforcement, shield recharge time, etc is really interesting, much more so than what would have come out of my head. Part of the satisfaction of playing with it is dealing with a challenging mechanic that came from a mind that works differently from my own.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

But since the topic of this thread has nothing to do with restrictions I feel this example is a little off subject and inadequate.

It has to do with priorities though, if they develop something like this, they don't develop something else. It is restricting for a player looking for BGS changes, or new weapon types, or various station models.

 

[Mithos09]

Hi there,

I haven't been playing for some months now. Clans seem to be a nice idea. But there has to be something to do for those clans.

As I left, there weren't any miltiplayer missions, everyone just had their own mission. RES farming was more efficiently done by every player on its own. The lone miner was better off because of the "flying small object limit" of 20something.
And so on. I don't know if that has changed or will change any time soon and I won't return prior to that.

 

[Kristov]

Because it's really about easier coordination with your mates/associates. For want of a better term - think of a social club with common goals and shared activities. Those might be aligned with game lore (such as pro-Imperial/Alliance/Federation groups) and/or fit into wider mechanisms such as powerplay.

The in-game tools relating to this are, frankly, awful. It can be bypassed to a degree with 3rd party tools but the point is that it shouldn't really have to be that way.

This line of argument for better team oriented tools ingame, total , sorry, but the fact is, it's total .

20 years of being in the same group for online games across multiple genres and games, most of which had NOTHING to support to teamwork, groups, or anything related to them. Never been an issue, even before the 3rd party tools that exist TODAY to facilitate communication were created, their predecessors did exist and we used them. We had voice comms, Roger Wilco, we had chat tools such as IRC, and we bought our own domain to set up our own website, complete with our own email addresses. One of my COs still pays for the domain, got some placeholder stuff up, one of these one of us might do something for it, but we've been saying that for a decade now, so...

HO CG, a FB group was created, BOOM! Instantly able to communicate with each other, I'm still part of the group, it's still quite active. Took a few minutes to set up and cost..nothing, no one had to install anything and it didn't increase the game's footprint 1 byte, nor did it alter anything IN the game that might ruin someone's immersion(which frankly I find to be one of the biggest whines around, it's a game, if you get THAT immersed in it, you need help, and this from a guy who learned to speak drow for a Neverwinter Night persistent server I helped GM on, it IS just a game!)

So, tools from the game to make communication and coordination better? Not needed. Better tools for teams, well, if this WAS actually a multiplayer game, that would be nice, target my teammate's target, stuff like that, love to have it, it's useful sometimes. Thing is, this is NOT actually a multiplayer game. Yes, it's massively multiplayer, in the strictest sense of the words ONLY, as technically, it fails horribly at being massively multiplayer, 32 people MAX per instance? Come on, that's a joke right? There ARE indeed thousands of people online in the game at any given time, so it is technically a massively multiplayer online game, but ONLY technically. There is NO multiplayer game design, Wings is an add on that no one asked for, remember? Much like CQC, lots of whining about it when it was announced, remember? And Wings is mostly a joke, groups of 4! OH BOY! Oh, can't actually get missions for the GROUP? Can't actually share anything with the rest of the group? Hmmm, so, it's not actually a MULTIPLAYER game, it's just a game that allows you to play alongside others online.

They speak of being able to randomly encounter other living players, being able to join up with them if you want, might be risky! There is nothing about forming TEAMS, nothing about GROUPS, just random encounters where you may or may not join forces for a short time. English, do you even? This is a PvE game, the design is very clear, and it's a single player game at that, again, the design is very clear. You CAN randomly run into other living players, you CAN join up with them if you want, but their own advertising suggests that's not a safe thing to do, FD actually DISCOURAGES working together with their own adverts for pity's sake, how the hell can you miss that? And to say it PROMOTES teams and working as a group despite their own adverts giving the exact opposite suggestion? Again, English, do you even?

 

[Garbarrage]

Beware the fallacy fallacy. Just because an argument contains a fallacy, doesn't mean it isn't true!

No. But it is logically invalid insofar as the premises don't lead to the conclusions. The conclusions may be true, but a fallacious argument has failed to prove it, and so is not deserving of consideration.

 

[Seonid]

Correlation does not imply causation and all that.

 

[Garbarrage]

I used to play a small MMORPG. The RP community paid for a separate server and they elected me to run the server as the Mod.

I took suggestions, crafted rules, and then enforced those rules and the dev tweaked the settings to support those rules.

Over the course of 3 months, the online average went from 60 to .5 on the server. Why?

Because when you give players what they want, they don't play. Go figure that one out, I can't.

So I had the Dev reset all the configs back to vanilla, and announced the reset. Server population started to bounce back and people had fun.

People claim what they want is what they want, but at least in my one specific case, people did not want it once they had it.

There is nothing in this that says it's true in all instances. Maybe you're just really poor at selecting which rules or features would work well, and so your track record at choosing what would or wouldn't be good for a game is already a bit iffy? ;-) That's a joke btw...

But in all seriousness, if you accept this position, you are essentially saying that ALL player suggestions would lead to the demise of a game.

Maybe letting players think that they have more of a say than they actually have, leads them to have enough self-entitlement that they quit when they don't get exactly what they want?

I'm posting my approval of wings guilds or clans, not because I expect it to be done the way I envision it, but I would hate to think that if those in charge ever looked over a thread, and saw a hundred players rail against an idea that I like, and nobody speaking up for it, that they would give it a miss.

I don't know a great many players in game, but all of the ones I do would want something like this in the game. I don't think experiences that people have had on other games should write an idea off. FD march to their own drum from what I can see. I have every confidence that were they to support clans, it would be unlike any other game either way.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

/snip/.

FD discourages working together? Could you provide a source for that?

 

[Talarin]

I love how often the various and diverse threads pop up explaining the reason a thriving game is failing and/or dying, losing players, etc and how the reason is always, succinct, simple and completely based around a pet feature the OP has.
...
There could be a variety of other beneficial mechanics that have nothing to do with coordinated multiplayer as well. I'd like to be able to "pledge" to a minor faction and do work for them, maybe ensure I get more missions on the bulletin board for them specifically instead of a random smattering from all factions in the system.

Remember the context of this thread (from the OP). He's saying that FD are missing potential players because of the poor multiplayer experience - a statement that I happen to agree with. It's become a bit of a pro vs. anti clan thread, but really what we're talking about is improving that experience (and his suggestions are clan-based, but the issue isn't clans or not).

Re: Minor factions and improving interaction with them. I agree completely.

Is it more pathetic than labeling all counter arguments as "I don't like it so nobody can have it!!" Instead of addressing them?

That's happening on both sides of this discussion and not really being helped by people arguing against positions they think are being made, rather than what's actually being written.

This line of argument for better team oriented tools ingame, total , sorry, but the fact is, it's total .
...
... 3rd party tools that exist TODAY to facilitate communication were created, their predecessors did exist and we used them...
... So, tools from the game to make communication and coordination better? Not needed. Better tools for teams, well, if this WAS actually a multiplayer game...
.
English, do you even? ... Again, English, do you even?

Well, that was a completely unjustified rant. You evidently feel that a) the game isn't multiplayer (I replied to this earlier in the thread) b) tools aren't needed because 3rd party tools are enough. That's fine and that's your opinion - but please don't pass it off as factual.

Clearly, enough people disagree with you that this topic and similar others have continually popped up. Your opinion isn't shared by everyone - so ranting against people trying to put forward ideas for improving the game doesn't really help anyone, does it?

Just to re-iterate: The issue raised by the OP is that the multiplayer aspect of the game isn't good enough to hold the attention of particular demographics of players. The clan (or not) element is a sideshow.

I agree with the OP. The multiplayer element of the game isn't good enough right now.

 

[Bacalao]

Remember the context of this thread (from the OP). He's saying that FD are missing potential players because of the poor multiplayer experience - a statement that I happen to agree with. It's become a bit of a pro vs. anti clan thread, but really what we're talking about is improving that experience (and his suggestions are clan-based, but the issue isn't clans or not).

Re: Minor factions and improving interaction with them. I agree completely.

And a major part of this discussion is whether or not solo players will be able to participate to an equal degree in these activities as well. The sword cuts both ways, as soon as they start to focus on multiplayer content for large groups, they will be missing potential players with no interest in those kinds of activities. I presented an idea that could benefit both those that would like to participate in PvP or PwP, as well as those that want to exclusively participate in PvE/PwE.
-
For me, it is very important that whatever group/guild/clan system is implemented, they are not given rules control of in game assets e.g. locking players in and out of systems/stations, NPCs targeting players of specific groups, mission creation. As the game stands now a player group can blockade an area in open, but I can always go into group and solo and avoid an interaction that may be distasteful to me. If I go into solo and try to go to system under dominion of player faction XYZ and leader of XYZ has decided I need a permit his group assigns to get into the system then I have a major problem, I am now locked out of parts of the game because of an unavoidable interaction I find undesirable.

 

[Talarin]

And a major part of this discussion is whether or not solo players will be able to participate to an equal degree in these activities as well. The sword cuts both ways, as soon as they start to focus on multiplayer content for large groups, they will be missing potential players with no interest in those kinds of activities. I presented an idea that could benefit both those that would like to participate in PvP or PwP, as well as those that want to exclusively participate in PvE/PwE.

I agree - and I think expanding the role of minor factions (combined with improvements to the BGS) could lead the way to vast improvements to the game experience as a whole (including multiplayer). Elements could be introduced by the background engine which players could subscribe to which leads to being winged up with other players who clicked the yes button. They, in turn, could be opposed by the rival minor faction who is the antagonist in that scenario.

Many of the elements touched on in the DDF could be expanded to have specific multiplayer components (essentially through automatic matchmaking), but also be available to those players who chose not to be part of it in a multiplayer context. BINGO - you've added emergent content to the benefit of those who want both group and solo content.

Combine that with slight expansions in the way you can interact with people on yours friends list, or people associated with the same minor faction as you (essentially a substitute for guild chat) and I think you've gone as far as I think Elite could realistically go without substantially changing the essence of the game in terms of player groups.

Combine that with substantial improvements on quick interaction with other players and npcs (I'm thinking a rosary comms system, but I appreciate not everyone would like that) - and you have a quick system for meaningful interactions.

(I touched on minor faction affiliation earlier in the thread, as did you. Take that as a given.)

For me, it is very important that whatever group/guild/clan system is implemented, they are not given rules control of in game assets e.g. locking players in and out of systems/stations, NPCs targeting players of specific groups, mission creation. As the game stands now a player group can blockade an area in open, but I can always go into group and solo and avoid an interaction that may be distasteful to me. If I go into solo and try to go to system under dominion of player faction XYZ and leader of XYZ has decided I need a permit his group assigns to get into the system then I have a major problem, I am now locked out of parts of the game because of an unavoidable interaction I find undesirable.

Again, I utterly agree. Give players the ability to influence (but not control) a minor faction. Give minor factions ownership of all in-game assets and give benefits and drawbacks to that membership. You've enriched the gameplay, given player groups a means to set themselves objectives but not intruded unduly on the experience of players who aren't bothered. (And, of course, solo players can benefit from that system too - except maybe weight of numbers in the influencing of the minor faction might be an issue but that exists now to a degree.)

 

[MadDogMurdock]

The simplest, most meaningful, and most effective way to do this is through minor factions.

Offer a level beyond Allied whereby you are pledged to that faction (and only that faction) and have it show up the same way it does for NPCs.
Add some level of benefits for that allegience - cheap outfitting, access to Tier 2 NPCs related to the faction, etc.

I'm completely opposed to loosely associated player run clans in game with tags etc.
If you don't recognise a Cmdr name, they aren't really your friend! Sharing [lulz] in your name doesn't change that.