Thanks for agreeing with the post I made right before this one.
But I wonder why you have to repeat it?
Last edited:
We need the ability to form in-game clans
- Thread starter TRLOS
- Start date
Thanks for agreeing with the post I made right before this one.
But I wonder why you have to repeat it?
I have flown with a prominent EVE 0.0 alliance for some years and Killboards have brought forth the very worst of Human nature, so please no. Let ED never take this particular road. I like it somewhat anonymous like percentages in CGs. And yes, the desire to not only band together but to 'own' stuff collectively and have the ingame tools to manage your 'clan' is understandable. Maybe Fd is so careful about this because of other games around that offered these and because not everything was shiny gold what these mechanisms produced. I mea, CCP Games even launched an 'infiltrate and screw them'-Trailer in which they basically encouraged people to pull off heists, theft and disintegration of opposing 'factions'; or those you simply dislike because of x,y,z.
Again, I don't think FD will go down that road. But I do suppose that 'clan' tags are a thing that should be doable in order to strengthen identification with a social group which one joined. Let's wait and see.
But to those arguing that 'we need the ability to form ingame clans': I think with Minor Factions we met the end of the rainbow here, sorry.
Why does open/group need features of it's own?
1 Player alone cannot have much of an affect on the BGS but it is never one player alone is it... Three modes all affecting the same BGS. I have still to hear a valid reason why any development time needs to be put into guild only features that would actually add anything tot he game which cannot be done already by a well organised group of players.
This is part of the problem with guilds. They expect a small number of features, then they want more... Then once again more is needed... It never ends and as only a small number of players in any MMO are ever in a guild at any one time it is a waste of dev time and company money. It does not bring millions or even hundreds of new players to the game. What you end up with are features that are half used by most, ignored by many and only fully realised by a small number.
Take Age of Conan... Player groups could build a city, a decent one too. There are thousands that are just a few small bricks, hundreds that have one or two buildings and a few that are fully built to tier 3. The number of man hours spent making this feature is only just being surpassed by the number of hours spent building them by the players and this is after many years. It ended up being a waste of time and money, the players saw it as a grind nothing more.
Now in Elite we already have groups claiming they own systems when in fact they do not. They are in just one instance in one mode with their name on a station, which of these groups has the money to afford to build a station? None as yet I would suspect, these things look like they cost quadrillions of £'s ($'s if you prefer monopoly money
). So the claims are just stupid as they are easy to get around.So to finish, which of the features wanted by players would you delay to bring guild features to the community? Should we delay waling in the ship? Entering gas giants?
If "emergent gameplay" is defined as "beef", I'm not interested.
I get my people-acting-like-silly-bananas fix playing BF3/4. I can get my fill of it any time I like. I never thought I'd say this about an online game, but one of the reasons I play Elite is because - to me, at least - it's a bit more civilised than 13 year olds teabagging you because they were lucky enough to get the final shot, then bragging about it on the internet.
I get my people-acting-like-silly-bananas fix playing BF3/4. I can get my fill of it any time I like. I never thought I'd say this about an online game, but one of the reasons I play Elite is because - to me, at least - it's a bit more civilised than 13 year olds teabagging you because they were lucky enough to get the final shot, then bragging about it on the internet.
Last edited by a moderator:
People who want to own stations, here's an idea. Talk to FD about making a separate game "station manager" - they've made a few with similar concepts behind them BUT, have this one interact with the ED universe and BGS. You start on an outpost with few landing pads and only basic repair facilities. You're running the station, your first task is to get a market up and running.... You can't stop folks from docking and you don't control the "government" (ie the controlling faction) but you can, by your actions, impact their influence and the profitability of the station. Profitable stations get more attractive to ED pilots. VERY profitable stations get upgrades, better shipyards, maybe give you the option of triggering a construction CG to upgrade your outpost to a full coriolis...
BUT, have this one interact with the ED universe and BGS. You start on an outpost with few landing pads and only basic repair facilities. You're running the station, your first task is to get a market up and running.... You can't stop folks from docking and you don't control the "government" (ie the controlling faction) but you can, by your actions, impact their influence and the profitability of the station. Profitable stations get more attractive to ED pilots. VERY profitable stations get upgrades, better shipyards, maybe give you the option of triggering a construction CG to upgrade your outpost to a full coriolis...
Thanks for comments, you responded with some pretty good points as well. It was more like a rough sketch so there's definitely space for some serious brainstorming. I can not stress enough that the future guild (a.k.a. minor player faction) game mechanics should NOT jeopardize solo players, ever, and that it has to be automated and incorporated into the BGS. Which itself needs to be expanded and made completely transparent.
You think this what we have now is all we are ever going to get? Well, I do hope you are being wrong. I believe that player factions are solid foundation to build upon, together with the BGS which is nowhere near where it could/should be.
Last edited:
CSG 'owns' Lugh until we do not. We have players playing in all three modes...helping out from their respective places. All players see the faction numbers in all the other modes.
Some of our players do not like to contact us through outside game means. They do not like VOIP programs...they are not comfortable giving information to access 'free' sites that offer things we use, etc. The only way for them to contact us..is either through a public means...these forums...or trying to be on at the same time as someone in the group. Which might be hard for some folks in various parts of the world.
This is why a chat function..where someone could at least leave a question...or a BB board where directions could be left are important. There are lot of other reasons for these requests...and they are being discussed with the devs by group leaderships. As DBOBE has stated elsewhere...these functions are coming...they will be singularly Elite: Dangerous configured.
The 'slippery slope' argument is a logical fallacy...and is not good for suggesting that 'bad things will happen as guilds get more goodies in the game'.
Prove me wrong in a year or so. Maybe things change and maybe player-driven things will get more attentiion; but as of now I am somewhat sceptical how this turns out.
Thanks for the reference made it a little easier
The "inflatable base" would be purely PvE orientated in all modes. It has nothing to do with a station. You do not own a conventional trading market. It doesn't act like a hub of influence. The purpose is a simple act of possession and form of money-sink to throw at a "tent" planted on a moon, in which you store ship/modules/resources (upcoming boosts).
It wouldn't be about owning a corporation, but a place to call "home". This "home" to the owner offers the above mentioned traits. To any other, in any other mode, it appears as an outpost planted on a planet to be raided in your SRV/ship with the objective of obtaining RNG loot ( 60 hunks of palladium because it happens to have a palladium extraction site nearby? ).
This PvE trophy / "home", allows for expansion. Multiple docking bays, larger storage bays, fuel compartments ( thinking of the fuel rats ), a basic defense system.
These would be dynamic and appear as such in every mode. Effectively offering diversity in the sites available to be pirated.
Nothing however contests your entitlement to that base.
A dedicated solo player could in theory make it his objective to invest into such base and start elaborating his "home"plate. Group/open play would allow a wing/group to contribute to this expansion.
Player A group: Hey lets build a tent on moon XX
Player B solo: Hey a tent, lets raid it for some loot!
If both were to meet in open, they would be faced off the same way you and I would be should we encounter in open space. Would I decide to keep you from raiding my base so I can have direct access to my docking bays/storage or do I consider the risk too great and wait for you to leave? After which the base's systems you brought down during your assault would come back online without any further input. You leave with the RNG loot completely independent of my belongings ( hidden storage? ) and I gain full access to lets say switch out my ASP for the Sidey I had stored and take those Crop-harvesters I left to an actual trading market.
--------
None of this offers dedicated content to a mode.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reference made it a little easier
The "inflatable base" would be purely PvE orientated in all modes. It has nothing to do with a station. You do not own a conventional trading market. It doesn't act like a hub of influence. The purpose is a simple act of possession and form of money-sink to throw at a "tent" planted on a moon, in which you store ship/modules/resources (upcoming boosts).
It wouldn't be about owning a corporation, but a place to call "home". This "home" to the owner offers the above mentioned traits. To any other, in any other mode, it appears as an outpost planted on a planet to be raided in your SRV/ship with the objective of obtaining RNG loot ( 60 hunks of palladium because it happens to have a palladium extraction site nearby? ).
This PvE trophy / "home", allows for expansion. Multiple docking bays, larger storage bays, fuel compartments ( thinking of the fuel rats ), a basic defense system.
These would be dynamic and appear as such in every mode. Effectively offering diversity in the sites available to be pirated.
Nothing however contests your entitlement to that base.
A dedicated solo player could in theory make it his objective to invest into such base and start elaborating his "home"plate. Group/open play would allow a wing/group to contribute to this expansion.
Player A group: Hey lets build a tent on moon XX
Player B solo: Hey a tent, lets raid it for some loot!
If both were to meet in open, they would be faced off the same way you and I would be should we encounter in open space. Would I decide to keep you from raiding my base so I can have direct access to my docking bays/storage or do I consider the risk too great and wait for you to leave? After which the base's systems you brought down during your assault would come back online without any further input. You leave with the RNG loot completely independent of my belongings ( hidden storage? ) and I gain full access to lets say switch out my ASP for the Sidey I had stored and take those Crop-harvesters I left to an actual trading market.
--------
None of this offers dedicated content to a mode.
None of that offers content, period, and it's locked out for anyone who doesn't have Horizons, so what exactly is the point of it? Player convenience is all I'm seeing, a place to store stuff. That's already been mentioned as on the table, storage locker or some such device at stations.
It's also not going to be what groups want, no way to actually have a real impact upon your enemy's base? Why bother? Solo/Group players will be just the opposite, they play AWAY from others specifically to avoid that kind of stuff. So which group do you cater to? And how much development time do you waste on this project in the first place, what gets shoved back for it? I don't want ANY development time spent on it, and I'm not alone in that, because I didn't BUY a team oriented game with housing, I bought Elite Dangerous, and THAT crap wasn't advertised as being part of the game.
Firstly it offers EXACTLY what the OP has formed in his ideas. Like literally. Secondly, no
people who don't own horizons won't be able to land on planets.None of this offers content?
Player owned base = content
Player owned storage = content
Player owned interaction and development with base = content
Dynamic bases to be raided = content.
Player convenience is nothing to strive for now? What?
"It's already been mentioned on the table"
YES exactly the point, it includes and fits with the ideas and points that are already coming. That's called being constructive.
Now you're deriving to your own opinion. You're dismissing the idea because it's not PvP orientated now?
You're trying to tell me solo/group players will stay away from moon bases that are set available to them to be raided? You're literally trying to tell me Horizons contains content that is and solo/group will be staying away from it?
Where on earth do you read this suggestion to be forming the game as "team orientated"?
What?
Dude?
Btw a "period" involves the end of a sentence lol.
Last edited:
People who want to own stations, here's an idea. Talk to FD about making a separate game "station manager" - they've made a few with similar concepts behind them
Actually, that might be a pretty neat option if treated like CQC and available alongside the main game and CQC as a separate menu option/game mode. Manage a station or outpost (on behalf of a faction or Power perhaps?) within the gameworld but detached from it to a degree through the main menu, especially if your prowess at managing the station functions like the shipyard, outfitting and market had a flow-on impact on the available options visible in the main game. Say you were terrible at managing the PvE component of the Station's supply chain? Might result in low stock levels in the market, or available ship modules in outfitting. Station Manager game mode incoming......although I'm sure Frontier would need to build in some form of safety net to guard against someone deliberately performing badly to sabotage a system, or in the event of an absent Manager (eg when logged off).
Except it's not a fallacy IF guild mechanics were to be introduced in a similar vein to Eve for example. In that event, while there'll be plenty of positives and benign guilds, there WILL also be the negatives from 'those' types of guilds that want to be on their own little power trip. No doubt about it in my mind. That said, I think you're right in that anything Frontier might like to introduce will likely be quite different to what 'those' types of guilds want. Better group coordination tools would be great - what I don't want is guild ownership if assets and territory though.
Last edited:
Special pleading? Moving the goalpost as to suggest "If it is introduced in a similar vein to Eve" which none's mentioned, still makes it a logical fallacy.
Firstly it offers EXACTLY what the OP has formed in his ideas. Like literally. Secondly, no
None of this offers content?
Player owned base = content
Player owned storage = content
Player owned interaction and development with base = content
Dynamic bases to be raided = content.
Player convenience is nothing to strive for now? What?
"It's already been mentioned on the table"
YES exactly the point, it includes and fits with the ideas and points that are already coming. That's called being constructive.
Now you're deriving to your own opinion. You're dismissing the idea because it's not PvP orientated now?
You're trying to tell me solo/group players will stay away from moon bases that are set available to them to be raided? You're literally trying to tell me Horizons contains content that is and solo/group will be staying away from it?
Where on earth do you read this suggestion to be forming the game as "team orientated"?
What?
Dude?
Btw a "period" involves the end of a sentence lol.
Have you played any games that offer housing, guild or individual? I have, it's not content, it's convenience and grind mechanics, that's it, unless you have a way for that housing to be attacked and destroyed by other players, at which point you could argue emergent gameplay content comes about. THAT isn't something the Solo players want, other players messing with their game, and FD is pretty clear that that is something they aren't going to allow, other players messing with people who don't want that interaction.
FD has already said that player storage on stations is on the table, so that negates the entire convenience bit, it's not required for the devs to devote time to creating player housing, which is a lot more involved than a storage option at stations. Extra work, a lot of it, for something the devs already plan on providing us? Well, my goodness, THAT makes sense doesn't it!
And I keep trying to make you understand, the groups, they'll want to be able to attack/defend the bases, at least at first, purely a PvP thing, that's it. You keep ignoring that point, acting as if groups don't matter, and yet the OP is specifically after group housing, not individual. What's the point of a group having housing if it actually serves no function beyond storage, which we'll be getting at stations already? Ship storage, something mentioned, pointless, as FD has also mentioned that ship delivery to where you are from where ever a ship is stored at is also on the table. So storage and ship parking, both covered by FD without housing being needed. So what does that leave? Building up the housing? Ah, yes, the pointless grind mechanic yet again for something that's not needed in the first place since storage and ship parking are already being addressed by FD. Groups want bases to protect and attack, that's the point of them for a group, which is what the OP is about, which you keep dismissing. Groups, loss of players due to the lack of group tools and group oriented content, which is something David Braben has been clear isn't going to happen.
You keep ignoring the OP and using the OP at the same time, that's rather...yeah...obviously you didn't read the OP, you don't know what was asked for and what was stated, but you keep using it as if you had. That does not bolster your own arguments very well, you know that?
And locking housing out behind Horizons doesn't bother you either...ok...
I think No
Slippery slope is a fallacy...you are talking about fictions that create fear to sell a point...not discussing the facts of the point. Although there are plenty of people that desire a way to carve up space assets into 'King of the Hill' type gameplay...the devs...and David himself have stated quite clearly that 'control' will never occur. In other words, just like the modes, those opinions do not matter. Those folks need to accept that...and start coming up with ideas that can be worked with within the framework of the game.
There are many tools that can be added to make this game a lot more comfortable and easy to deal with managing groups of people...which, definitely appear to be scheduled for addition.
Assuming the minor faction "clan" model we seem to be heading to, which I am not necessarily opposed to - tagging is a logical next step - hey how can you be a terrorist against an exploiting power if you are not tagged?
I almost agree with Cmdr Roybe completey. I would like to see better communication tools such as minor faction chat channel, minor-faction folder in the "cmdr" tab of the comms panel and "email style messages" for the inbox. These are tools that help player groups of all sizes.
The only difference i think I have with Cmdr Royce is in the "slippery slope" comment. I still have a nagging scare, that FD will let the genie out of the bag and we will end up with games resources owned by clans/player minor factions. I really do not want this, as it ultmiately limits where a player can play and what they can do, which is simply a no-no. But better in game comss is a must - we could do with it and there are only half a dozen of us.
For those saying a single player cannot affect the BGS - simply not true. You can get 4-5% swing as a single player in a 50K population system. Your affects are much smaller in a 50M population system, but a single player in an Anaconda can certainly swing influecne by 1-3% in a 50M system, which is often enough with a plan. Obviously these are raw figures, and when other players are around, let alone players on an opposite trajectory - figures reduce. I actually quite like the 1.4.1 BGS mechanics.
Simon
I almost agree with Cmdr Roybe completey. I would like to see better communication tools such as minor faction chat channel, minor-faction folder in the "cmdr" tab of the comms panel and "email style messages" for the inbox. These are tools that help player groups of all sizes.
The only difference i think I have with Cmdr Royce is in the "slippery slope" comment. I still have a nagging scare, that FD will let the genie out of the bag and we will end up with games resources owned by clans/player minor factions. I really do not want this, as it ultmiately limits where a player can play and what they can do, which is simply a no-no. But better in game comss is a must - we could do with it and there are only half a dozen of us.
For those saying a single player cannot affect the BGS - simply not true. You can get 4-5% swing as a single player in a 50K population system. Your affects are much smaller in a 50M population system, but a single player in an Anaconda can certainly swing influecne by 1-3% in a 50M system, which is often enough with a plan. Obviously these are raw figures, and when other players are around, let alone players on an opposite trajectory - figures reduce. I actually quite like the 1.4.1 BGS mechanics.
Simon
Valid point. I would love to see ingame communication being enhanced in general. As of now, it's pretty awkward and unintuitive, including the placement of the Comms Panel top left. Instead you could place weapons and module loadout information there. Ideally FD would allow for a completely customizable 'UI windows' system and Comms/Channels/Chats would be a window I personally would place in the lower left beside the left Holo icon, where now you have target info.
Also, the ability to create new channels should not be limited to Factions or Wings; more like player initiated special interest groups like 'Explorer Channel', 'Eravate Help Channel', 'Pleiades Sector' or the like.
Thanks for the reference made it a little easier
The "inflatable base" would be purely PvE orientated in all modes. It has nothing to do with a station. You do not own a conventional trading market. It doesn't act like a hub of influence. The purpose is a simple act of possession and form of money-sink to throw at a "tent" planted on a moon, in which you store ship/modules/resources (upcoming boosts).
It wouldn't be about owning a corporation, but a place to call "home". This "home" to the owner offers the above mentioned traits. To any other, in any other mode, it appears as an outpost planted on a planet to be raided in your SRV/ship with the objective of obtaining RNG loot ( 60 hunks of palladium because it happens to have a palladium extraction site nearby? ).
This PvE trophy / "home", allows for expansion. Multiple docking bays, larger storage bays, fuel compartments ( thinking of the fuel rats ), a basic defense system.
These would be dynamic and appear as such in every mode. Effectively offering diversity in the sites available to be pirated.
Nothing however contests your entitlement to that base.
A dedicated solo player could in theory make it his objective to invest into such base and start elaborating his "home"plate. Group/open play would allow a wing/group to contribute to this expansion.
Player A group: Hey lets build a tent on moon XX
Player B solo: Hey a tent, lets raid it for some loot!
If both were to meet in open, they would be faced off the same way you and I would be should we encounter in open space. Would I decide to keep you from raiding my base so I can have direct access to my docking bays/storage or do I consider the risk too great and wait for you to leave? After which the base's systems you brought down during your assault would come back online without any further input. You leave with the RNG loot completely independent of my belongings ( hidden storage? ) and I gain full access to lets say switch out my ASP for the Sidey I had stored and take those Crop-harvesters I left to an actual trading market.
--------
None of this offers dedicated content to a mode.
If this is a storage facility...it only will be repetitive of what is already scheduled for star ports and stations.
The fact that this is also a feature unavailable to other players is also problematic...unless you are only allowing this for a single player....and if that is the case....the base still has to be available to that player in it's whole form through out all the modes. You cannot have it be an Open only reward...a solo player would also have to be able to access their storage from the other two modes....because they might play in those modes.
Expansion...poor choice of word. Improvement or upgrading is your better choice...as in this game that has certain meanings. ;P However, I do not see a need to add 'defense' systems, as it would have to be 'joe's supply shack' to everyone...but only Joe could enter it. Upgrading the looks...seems interesting. Grindy...but what MMO isn't when it comes to this type of content?
This would easily be serviceable if the base would only be available to a single player in their own instance. I see no need, for the base to be a public place. There are reasons for some folks that this would be problematic...as it would be a 'safe place' from a PVP attack....however in the scheme of things...not a huge problem. The idea that this base would be carved out assets would be a larger problem.
I also question the capability of the code to be massaged to create such a multiple state item within the game. The modes require everyone to see the same thing. A private item in one mode, I doubt can be made to appear as a public space in another mode. Again, private ownership, regardless of the size, is a stated concern for the CEO.
In the end, the current faction system and the addition of space ports with private storage....will be added with Horizons. Which is quite close to your request. A place that a faction/group or single player that has its name on that can be used for personal storage that others can interact with. A mostly win situation when you consider the compromise.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not to turn this into a discussion on logic and debate...but here is the fallacy and reasoning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Last edited: