Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed. Which is why forum polls are not able to be taken as representing players - there is no requirement to own the game to be able to vote.
No Clans/Player Factions?
- Thread starter indiebob
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. Which is why forum polls are not able to be taken as representing players - there is no requirement to own the game to be able to vote.
That is really such an irritating, evasive answer...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's a scurrilous allegation!
I trust no political party and would not be a member of any one of them on that basis....That's a scurrilous allegation!
LOl......nice one
More standardized online gaming conventions like clans or formalized player organizations aren’t in the cards, at least not for the foreseeable future.
And that answer is the most worrying as it doesn't rule out anything. The foreseeable future can mean anything you want it to. What it doesn't mean is that this will definitely never happen.
It is a factually correct answer however
Elite Dangerous has it's own form of player groups, the Minor Factions, and there are simple and direct ways to create one, I know having recently been involved in the process myself. I have many years of playing games with groups, large and small, in any number of different game genres online. I've seen literally no support at all for them in very successful games to awesome support for them in failed games, and the only difference in those was the worth of the game itself, NOT in how it catered to or didn't cater to player groups.
Most groups use Teamspeak or Ventrillo or Mumble or some other 3rd party voice comm software to communicate within the group, both while gaming and while not gaming. They tend to get their own website together or use Facebook or another site for that purpose. And that is totally without regard to what the GAME might offer in the way of group support, which most groups could really give a rat's furry rear end about, as they are going to use these tools I mentioned anyway, they are tried, true and free and work OUTSIDE the game itself. I'm the XO of the Shadow Rats Marauders, 20 years of gaming together online, we have our own TS server, we have our own domain and website which we've been known to update once a decade, if anyone remembers we have it, because most of our communication takes place on our TS server or we simply text each other(for those of us in the same country that is, we span the globe with members).
Great... but in that case, all of the potential negative effects are already present. What would be the harm in putting in game alternatives, if just to facilitate direction to these out of game tools?
If VR users are using out of game tools already, how are they at a disadvantage? They can use out of game tools and mods likr speech to text to "type" in a chat channel.
Also, some players can't use voice comms. For example, one of my friends here, who used to play with our group in another game, is deaf. He can't use voice comms. There are also players who are timid to use TS, but are perfectly comfortable communicating through text. These players are currently at a huge social and gameplay disadvantage. A text channel would include them in the social aspect of the game.
See above RE hearing impaired.
So basically, you have to play with a minor faction to avail of these social features? Doesn't seem very inclusive.
It's anything but simple and direct. The current "workaround" seems to be inefficient, inadequate, and a waste of development resources, judging by recent posts on the group forum.
It seems that they're snowed under. Luckily they are working on a better process though.Hi all, just as an update to this... If you've submitted your group on or before December 18th, I have you added into our internal list (note: this does not guarantee that you'll have your group added into the game right this moment!). I do apologise for the delay with this, there's a lot of group submissions! I am still working through the submissions.
Additionally, I'll be spending most of this week doing validation checks for the minor factions group submissions. If there are issues, I will be sending you an email back stating what is missing or what other details that are required. As always, the emails will be originating from my email of bcooper @ frontier.co.uk.
Thanks for your patience, I hope everyone has had a nice holiday weekend.
But this development time could be saved going forward, if they just create a way of doing it ingame. Having to personally deal with each request seems like an awful waste of resources.We have a new system coming here soonish, which should streamline most of the process.
one of the problems with player associations, is that sometimes, the 'head' of the association gets the idea that they are entitled to dictate the direction of game development, to the game designers.
this can get ugly pretty fast, in other parts of the internet, e.g. places like reddit, where potential new players ask questions about the game, and because a particular player association has a disagreement with the game designers, the association members post comments that have the effect of discouraging potential new players.
Clans can also cause development/staff time to be expended on things which have little benefit to much of the players.
E.g. a demand for a formal pvp tournament, with tournament-specific ingame prizes - such as say, special skins for members of the winning clan.
Scenario: after being told that sharkmouth skins aren't likely to be implemented, and that there are no plans for formal officially sanctioned pvp tournaments, a clan head orders their members to denigrate the game on social media, and dissuade potential new players, in an effort to have those decisions by the game developers reversed.
The original post mentions this:
"Perhaps even offering players discounts on stations/systems where their clan has significant control. You could even have clans pledge allegiance to higher powers giving members access to some of the unique technologies etc associated with them at reduced rates."
Allowing discounts, or access to the unique technologies, based on membership of a particular group and not on ingame actions, seems a bit out of place, and acts as a detriment to independent players. "Be in a clan, or lose out", looks to me, like favouring the creation of large groups, which would tend to promote the situation where a head of a large clan is in a position of being able to dictate game development direction.
And I don't think that would be good for the game.
this can get ugly pretty fast, in other parts of the internet, e.g. places like reddit, where potential new players ask questions about the game, and because a particular player association has a disagreement with the game designers, the association members post comments that have the effect of discouraging potential new players.
Clans can also cause development/staff time to be expended on things which have little benefit to much of the players.
E.g. a demand for a formal pvp tournament, with tournament-specific ingame prizes - such as say, special skins for members of the winning clan.
Scenario: after being told that sharkmouth skins aren't likely to be implemented, and that there are no plans for formal officially sanctioned pvp tournaments, a clan head orders their members to denigrate the game on social media, and dissuade potential new players, in an effort to have those decisions by the game developers reversed.
The original post mentions this:
"Perhaps even offering players discounts on stations/systems where their clan has significant control. You could even have clans pledge allegiance to higher powers giving members access to some of the unique technologies etc associated with them at reduced rates."
Allowing discounts, or access to the unique technologies, based on membership of a particular group and not on ingame actions, seems a bit out of place, and acts as a detriment to independent players. "Be in a clan, or lose out", looks to me, like favouring the creation of large groups, which would tend to promote the situation where a head of a large clan is in a position of being able to dictate game development direction.
And I don't think that would be good for the game.
That's fine and yet, despite one's ability to provide many traditional guild/faction facilities through external sites and software, most online games implement their own in-game technologies to facilitate it. They are clearly out of their minds wasting their time on such things. Though ....It is a factually correct answer however
Elite Dangerous has it's own form of player groups, the Minor Factions, and there are simple and direct ways to create one, I know having recently been involved in the process myself. I have many years of playing games with groups, large and small, in any number of different game genres online. I've seen literally no support at all for them in very successful games to awesome support for them in failed games, and the only difference in those was the worth of the game itself, NOT in how it catered to or didn't cater to player groups.
Most groups use Teamspeak or Ventrillo or Mumble or some other 3rd party voice comm software to communicate within the group, both while gaming and while not gaming. They tend to get their own website together or use Facebook or another site for that purpose. And that is totally without regard to what the GAME might offer in the way of group support, which most groups could really give a rat's furry rear end about, as they are going to use these tools I mentioned anyway, they are tried, true and free and work OUTSIDE the game itself. I'm the XO of the Shadow Rats Marauders, 20 years of gaming together online, we have our own TS server, we have our own domain and website which we've been known to update once a decade, if anyone remembers we have it, because most of our communication takes place on our TS server or we simply text each other(for those of us in the same country that is, we span the globe with members).
I know, the elitists (no pun intended) like the "the harder it is the better I feel about myself for having done it" but it is that: something for the elitists. It needs to be mainstream.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Exactly, you9 begin to see the possibilities of a true clan system. i am not saying that the weak ingame factions system (weak as in hardly supported/implemented, rather than poor quality) isn't a step in the right direction, it's just definitely NOT a clan/guild (tbh I'd call them factions) system.
I hope that Frontier recognise the opportunity here and charge £1 to have each member added to your group. This would add genuine value to being in a group, will regulate the size of groups somewhat and will offer incentive to truly know the people you decide to lead. A group that becomes known for being ass holes will have a real cost!
That's a development / communications issue. If they want to be dominated by leaders of certain clans, they are foolish and need to do better market research.
The only place I have seen it be a real problem is Eve online, in my experience, and that game is a mess for it (IMO). Doesn't happen in WoW, World of Tanks or many of the other games I play with very well developed clan systems.
RE your scenario - people aren't drones and I can't see a clan that acted like that lasting long. Sounds fanciful. Let's face it, you could do the same as the admin of one of the massive facebook ED groups out there. People would likewise ignore you.
it already happens if you declare allegiance to one or more factions unique weapons are available after doing so many missions to them. IN addition there are already massive discounts at some stations, I am suggesting there'd be another 5 or 10% for clan/faction members in stations they controlled. Maybe 5% + 5% if the faction controlled the system in which the station is.
btw I am pretty sure I said discounts on unique gear meaning if you earn unique gear from ingame actions, it is cheaper if your clan is allied with the source of the gear. So you might get an additional 5% discount on a Pacifier Frag-Cannon, when you earn it, if your clan is allied with Zachary Hudson.
Stations might have specialities which give them extra 5% or 10% discounts on specific categories of equipment.
As an individual you'd lose out anyway, of course, since you wouldn't enjoy the support/military back up of clan mates, but as with that you'd have more freedom to do what you want. No doubt clans would protect their territory, would require you to do power play missions to further their cause etc.
Last edited:
Facebook Gangs in Space don't own anything in Elite
It is a factually correct answer however
The point is, and what Elite was sold heavily on before launch, there are no ingame consequences severe enough to make someone ever reconsider murdering another player. The police is harmless, the bounty is pocket change (and you dont even have to pay it, ever) and the promised shadowbanning of the worst offenders never happened. The statements DB made were also never rectified in word, but in action.
With the 1.3 crime changes, being a sociopathic mass murderer became even easier. Bounties were limited to minor factions for players. Players can no longer get Alliance, Empire or Federation bounties (another key difference to NPC) and bounties expire after a week at the latest. So players that notoriously had millions in bounties from murder are now at sub 100k even if you KWS them while they're docked at a station where they are wanted for multiple murders .... while we're somehow talking about Federation stations denying Docking to highly ranked Imperial players. Ugh. So even the monetary aspect of hunting griefers disappeared.
And then you have Robert here stating that murdering players has consequences. I find that irritating.
That's not comparable.
Currently, you do missions, and can get unique technologies as a result. You've done something to achieve that.
Getting access to those unique technologies, based on joining a particular group, is not the same. It's benefits without having done anything to earn those benefits.
Not the same at all.
I wish I could agree, it's definitely not about the solo player, it's some awkward 'in-between'.
The game currently seems aimed at small groups (wings) as this is where most features being created and have been created are aimed towards. It's also where the marketing seems to be aimed at. For example - a solo player cannot have NPC wings. A solo player will not be able to have NPC multicrew. A solo player cannot have a minor faction named by them with NPC members. A solo player cannot make appropriate use of avatar creation (what use does it have for them considering Elite is played in first person - unless they plan on adding mirrors to the ships).
There are no in game ways for players to get together in more than a Wing however there are the minor factions that are created.
I think the game would be better if it focused strongly one way or the other - enhance the grouping and faction/powerplay tools so that players can organise better or expand the solo features so that they can be utilised by the solo player.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is possible that the "weakness" of player sponsored Minor Factions is entirely deliberate on Frontier's part. Given that DBOBE has reservations with respect to some of the more contentious forms of game-play that clans / guilds would likely permit, the introduction of player sponsored Minor Factions which may, in time, grow large enough to become one of the Powers in Powerplay the emphasis would seem to be on player participation on a macro scale without players being able to directly control all participants - just as in Powerplay.
There are quite a few players who have minor factions, and seemingly few players who participate in power play. Fewer still who play it other than to grind for a particular gameplay bonus, as evidenced by an apparently small group being able to push Mahon to the top spot.
If your minor faction is successful, and gets to the top position, are you doomed to lose them to PP?
Its no longer aimed at billy no mates, its aimed at billy three mates, billy lotsa mates can go play something else
It's beginning to get less clear exactly what the direction of ED is, other than every direction all at once with nothing ever being completed or finished. As for what it was or might be based on the early directions people backed against, yeah, its not hard to see how people might feel let down by that in some cases.
I think in game 'guild' facilities are bound to happen, its too big of an online staple (and hence customer retention) point for it to be left out. However with out some form of ownership in game, other than a ship, Im not sure there is much point beyond what is already in place with alignment to a minor faction. A proper 'guild' system deeply sewn into the games bgs/political/faction fabric could be fantastic, it could be a total train wreck and right now it would be the later with FD's lack of attention to details.
For sure, imho, the 'solo' player is going the way of the Dodo in terms of game development directed at them, as evidences by the total absence of NPC content in a number of features since Wings and onwards, this may get picked up in the future but for now its a pretty big hole and its only getting deeper. I dont think the current players alignment to a minor faction is anything more than a tacit nod to the fact that FD cant create game content and/or NPC content (for now) and have therefor decided to open up to players being the content, at least for some part.
btw, when does Horizons stop being early access? would that be just in time for season 3 to be released as early access?
- Status