Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[smiths121]

Blimey Cmdr MottiKhan - its like being down the pub - we agree on many things and then it turns to politics.....
I was initially opposed to "tagging" - but I would be proudly wearing a CD-44 10336 Industries tag at this moment if I could . Not from an MMO background takes me a bit of time.

Can I put you down for the "What happened to Smeaton ... and why?" brigade after - you, I and hundreds of other commanders have sorted out the Anlave situation?
Should be rather different to our current activities!

Simon

LOL! If I could rep you again, I would. Yes, Winters would be my choice if it came down to those two.

I'd like to be able to pledge to a minor faction. That would work out quite well for those of us who care about the BGS. For others, maybe not. I don't care about making rank or credits at this point. I would like to see my efforts and the efforts of those like me making a difference. Especially if that difference doesn't get summarily erased by a "fix".

 

[relayer]

Anyone who thinks this game will turn into eve is incredibly clueless to how this game works. Solo will always exist and with instancing and group/solo any attempts to "control space" are absolutely futile. You are afraid of something that can literally never happen in this game.

You don't seem to have read/researched this topic very well, or you'd be aware of a group of players that are demanding (yes, demanding, not suggesting) that very position. Then comes "get rid of solo/group modes." Read a little about this "clueless" position.

 

[Louella]

So... the idea of division of labor is foreign to you...?
So you have something against people collaborating? Why would people collaborate when it provides no noticeable benefit over working alone? How is this concept foreign to anyone living in any given civilization?

No. Nothing against collaborating. The statements were to illustrate a particular situation. If two players that are guildmates can collaborate, but two players who are not guildmates are prevented from such, then that has an effect on wider player behaviour.

Sure, create a market for it, I think it stimulates a good market mechanic. This material supply helps all players, I'm sure PvE player can appreciate some additional aid in their endavors that can be exchanged with credits.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the intent of the game is. Being able to purchase the materials you need almost anywhere, vs adventure of going prospecting and finding the perfect rock. What is Frontier's intention ? What player behaviours are they wanting to promote ?

Never said it was easy.

It all depends on what Frontier's intentions are, as to how they expect players to interact, with each other, and with the story.

Clan A and Clan B, it looks like Frontier would prefer for them to shoot each other, because Clan A favours That NPC Guy, and Clan B favours That Other NPC Guy.
Instead of Clan A and Clan B shooting each other for reasons that have little or no direct connection with the NPC backstory and game setting. (A situation which can be seen in other MMOs)

 

[relayer]

How come every thread similar to this seems to end up sounding like people trying to strongarm FD into changing their game?

It's really a big clue to the type of mindset those people have and would carry through to their gameplay.

This is why there's such "opposition" to the "clans/guilds" idea - because it always ends up with demands to allow players control of game assets. Reading just the last 10 pages will show you that.

 

[dynamicbob]

How come every thread similar to this ends up sounding like people trying to strongarm FD into changing their game?

It's really a big clue to the type of mindset those people have and would carry through to their gameplay.

This is why there's such "opposition" to the "clans/guilds" idea - because it always ends up with demands to allow players control of game assets. Reading just the last 10 pages will show you that.

Some of us want player groups to be strengthened ( but allow solo and indepdant pilots activies to) by merely strengthening the background simulation. making it that player groups arent directly ingame, but that all mechancis aer inserted to minor factions being important ( that way large gropus of players can expand their choice of minor factions / government types etc) but it is all indirect and fits in with the existing mechanics ( automatic colonisation is a good start) but not focused on one CG a week, but many minor CGs allowing systems to rise and fall , stations to appear (and disappear or at least fall into disrepair)

The problem is , its not on Fdevs roadmap, braben wants shiny technology, pretty graphics, very thin content ( mile wide inch deep) gameplay, and rely on massively multiplayer grinding focused around developers being the duengon master. So we must keep lobbying its important the for the games long term longevity, and retaining players will ensure future DLCs are successful , cause if they dont retain players, future DLCs wont sell very well.

So if devs are reading this, pass the info up, fix the existing promises and stop trying as much to shove shinies down our throats as much. Its good but it shouldnt all be about profit profit profit and propping up other projects cough coaster planet which should stand on its own two legs or fail.

 

[Talarin]

I'd suggest the view that "clanning" principally gives the game two elements that it's short of:

Socialisation
Purpose to the game experience

I don't believe many people would disagree that improvements to these elements could drastically improve Elite.

All of the contentious elements (control of space, PvP, asset ownership, impact on the "lone wolf" experience) are merely questions of game design - they aren't compulsory parts of any clan system and so a knee jerk "we shouldn't have clans" response is ill thought out.

Massive expansion of the minor faction system (and the way we interact with it) and better interlinking between the minor and powers/major factions is a nice way of improving the game FOR EVERYONE, whilst enabling the multiplayer experience which is so often asked for.

Given that the minor factions are the abstract layer between the player and the game world - this could do with huge improvement anyway. Kill two birds with one stone.

Just my tuppence...

 

[GluttonyFang]

No. Nothing against collaborating. The statements were to illustrate a particular situation. If two players that are guildmates can collaborate, but two players who are not guildmates are prevented from such, then that has an effect on wider player behaviour.

Then why not introduce material trading at the same time to make it fair for everyone?

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the intent of the game is. Being able to purchase the materials you need almost anywhere, vs adventure of going prospecting and finding the perfect rock. What is Frontier's intention ? What player behaviours are they wanting to promote ?

But this creates variety and choice. Those that seek out the thrill in discovering materials can do so, and those that need materials for performance yet do not want to go out and collect can still exchange their hard earned credits for convenience. I see a healthy increase in variety of choice.

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

How come every thread similar to this seems to end up sounding like people trying to strongarm FD into changing their game?

It's really a big clue to the type of mindset those people have and would carry through to their gameplay.

This is why there's such "opposition" to the "clans/guilds" idea - because it always ends up with demands to allow players control of game assets. Reading just the last 10 pages will show you that.

Because it's literally like any good old Democrat vs. Republican debate, the latter hates the former for innovating, the former hates the latter for being stubborn and traditional.

It's not really something out of the ordinary. I don't see people strongarming FD, but I do see confrontational people, that's about it.

What I don't understand is why are some people so against bringing variety and social aspects into the game when no reasonable/credible ideas are trying to throw traditional gameplay into the garbage.

 

[Garbarrage]

You don't seem to have read/researched this topic very well, or you'd be aware of a group of players that are demanding (yes, demanding, not suggesting) that very position. Then comes "get rid of solo/group modes." Read a little about this "clueless" position.

Could you quote one of these people "demanding" that solo be removed?

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

How come every thread similar to this seems to end up sounding like people trying to strongarm FD into changing their game?

It's really a big clue to the type of mindset those people have and would carry through to their gameplay.

This is why there's such "opposition" to the "clans/guilds" idea - because it always ends up with demands to allow players control of game assets. Reading just the last 10 pages will show you that.

Again... could you quote a player who has tried to "strongarm" FD into changing the game?

I think you might be showing more of your mindset than you are actually seeing of anyone else's.

 

[Louella]

Then why not introduce material trading at the same time to make it fair for everyone?

But this creates variety and choice. Those that seek out the thrill in discovering materials can do so, and those that need materials for performance yet do not want to go out and collect can still exchange their hard earned credits for convenience. I see a healthy increase in variety of choice.

Other parts of my post said why material trading for all, has other effects on the game. Like pushing down on linked bubble wrap. Poke one bit, another bit expands, poke that bit as well, a third bit expands. Unexpected consequences.

If you want those materials, do not want to collect them, but can buy them, then, it might be good for some players, but I'm not sure if that's good for the game as a whole, being able to bypass a whole expansion like that. Also, other effects on player behaviour, like:

Do existing activity X that earns Y credits/hour.
Expansion introduces something new, which earns less than Y credits/hour, but provides other benefits.
If you can buy those benefits, then...
Why not just keep doing X, and buy the thing ? Why take an interest in the expansion ?

What I don't understand is why are some people so against bringing variety and social aspects into the game when no reasonable/credible ideas are trying to throw traditional gameplay into the garbage.

because of something I mentioned on p17. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=222398&page=17&p=3399123&viewfull=1#post3399123

some comments about this kind of thing, have mentioned wanting "mmo industry standard" things, which I dunno, why must every game be p.much the same apart from the visuals ? Like, there's mmos where you outfit a magic warrior dude, and mmos where you outfit a scifi fighting robot, but they play exactly the same, more or less. Only the visual setting differentiates them.

The way some comments are worded, some people give the impression, maybe not intentionally, that they want Elite to be almost exactly like that other MMO, just with different visuals.

And other people, some who play other MMOs, and some who don't, want Elite to be a unique gaming experience, different to the other games that they play or played. "Standard MMO mechanics" upsets those people, because they don't want to play a standard MMO, they want to play Elite, and their interpretation of what Elite is supposed to be is vastly different.


Marmite, more or less. vOv

 

[GluttonyFang]

If you want those materials, do not want to collect them, but can buy them, then, it might be good for some players, but I'm not sure if that's good for the game as a whole, being able to bypass a whole expansion like that.

Wait, wait. First of all, material collecting does not represent an entire expansion, its only one facet of an expansion.

After that... what is wrong with people not exploring certain feature of an expansion? It's not like they didn't pay for the expansion, so the development fund is already there.

Also, other effects on player behaviour, like:

Do existing activity X that earns Y credits/hour.
Expansion introduces something new, which earns less than Y credits/hour, but provides other benefits.
If you can buy those benefits, then...
Why not just keep doing X, and buy the thing ? Why take an interest in the expansion ?

What you're suggesting is a dangerous thing, you are forcing players to play through content you might enjoy or you think they should enjoy. There are many facets to the expansion that isn't material collecting.

The way some comments are worded, some people give the impression, maybe not intentionally, that they want Elite to be almost exactly like that other MMO, just with different visuals.

And I would start to hate ED if it became just another re-skin MMO, it needs to keep its auratic value while providing more variety and choices to players.

And other people, some who play other MMOs, and some who don't, want Elite to be a unique gaming experience, different to the other games that they play or played. "Standard MMO mechanics" upsets those people, because they don't want to play a standard MMO, they want to play Elite, and their interpretation of what Elite is supposed to be is vastly different.

There will be certain basic systems that inevitably appear similar to other MMO, after all, there is no such thing as complete originality, inspiration and imitation have to happen at various degrees.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

The 84'ers who lament for the days of decades past, on their knees pleading with FDev to take steps backwards across the technological progression that video games have seen over the last 30 years only so that they can relive their solo glory days, having risen so far from mom's basement only to be relegated to the corner of the dining room by a resentful spouse. No thanks. The people who prefer the challenge and uncertainty of open aren't the ones ruining the game for everyone else, not by a long shot.

The irony of these anti-geek stereotypes popping up in a forum devoted to video games never ceases to amaze me. However, one thing is really, really clear: You really do hate the older players. My only question is to the mods: Why is this allowed to continue?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Fold

Ahem ahem be careful with that, as much as I agree the stereotyping is toxic and unproductive, questioning the moderator is the most sensitive issue on this forum. Don't do it in public. Report the post and move on.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Ahem ahem be careful with that, as much as I agree the stereotyping is toxic and unproductive, questioning the moderator is the most sensitive issue on this forum. Don't do it in public. Report the post and move on.

Eh, I was kind of stunned by the whole thing, so didn't think it through. Still confused about the whole thing, to be honest. Mom's basement, resentful spouse, cramped dining room, etc, but still somehow the impression that despite playing the same game that more aggressive players were somehow exempt. Are pvpers so special that mom moved herself into the basement? At a loss with this one.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Eh, I was kind of stunned by the whole thing, so didn't think it through. Still confused about the whole thing, to be honest. Mom's basement, resentful spouse, cramped dining room, etc, but still somehow the impression that despite playing the same game that more aggressive players were somehow exempt. Are pvpers so special that mom moved herself into the basement? At a loss with this one.

I know, but all we can do is report these kind of commentaries and try to avoid getting caught up and adding burden to the moderators.

What I put in bold is just going to create more problems, now the more easily aggravated people in the PvP crowd is probably going to retaliate and create more problems.

 

[Chris Majere]

The way some comments are worded, some people give the impression, maybe not intentionally, that they want Elite to be almost exactly like that other MMO, just with different visuals.

Louella, I'll give you some of the main reasons why that other MMO (lets call it Eve) turned so bad:

- Ability to have unlimited amount of friends in a very limited size Galaxy (NO Limit to Player Organization sizes...not Limit to the number of allies you can have---Yes The Blue Donut!!!)
- Single shard Universe
- ease of transefering money from one character to another (which helps RMT)
- ease in creating (disposable) alt characters
- player activity statistics constantly provided by the game for the whole map (free intel)
- ease in creating Intel channels
- local chat that tells you who is in system and their affiliations
- ease of creating a contact list of any other character that notifies you when a particular player is logging on or off (anywhere he is in the Galaxy)
- locator agents
- Need to use gates to travel from one system to another (if your not using a cyno)
- cannot change direction while in warp
- AFK cloacky campers

Those things are NOT in ED or have nothing to do with it. Do Pro-Clan folks want those? NO!

Now lets look at some of the things that sets ED apart from EVE that would still prevent the game of becoming toxic and unbalanced, even with clans and player owned stations/systems implemented:

- A MASSIVE galaxy (billions of star systems!!)
- Server instancing
- Very large systems with lengthy travel times to be done in Supercruise
- Solo play
- no free intel
- limited sensor range
- Ability to jump to any other system (without the use of gates or cynos) that is within the range capability of your JD....from anywhere in a system (as long as you are not massed locked)

So... Do you still think ED could become like that other MMO? I dont think so. Oh wait...IF clans/player factions are implemented, they could limit them to 10-20-50 players max. I wouldn't mind. Also, if player owned stations and systems would become a thing, but only feasable on the complete opposite side of the galaxy from where the bubble is, I wouldn't mind either.

So what say you???

 

[relayer]

All of the contentious elements (control of space, PvP, asset ownership, impact on the "lone wolf" experience) are merely questions of game design - they aren't compulsory parts of any clan system and so a knee jerk "we shouldn't have clans" response is ill thought out.

It's no knee-jerk reaction; those points are demanded of FD repeatedly. Again, read the last 10 pages of this thread. Perhaps you have a different idea of "clan" than "those people" - the ones demanding/wishing hard/petitioning for player control of game assets. And again, no. Just no.

Could you quote one of these people "demanding" that solo be removed?

Sure! Always glad to help: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=216887

Again... could you quote a player who has tried to "strongarm" FD into changing the game?

Sure! See above.

I think you might be showing more of your mindset than you are actually seeing of anyone else's.

Actually, no, I am focusing on the mindset of the players who say they just want little tools for in-game contacts, which is fine. However, a most-vocal segment then wants moar... and moar... and skirts around the issue & dissembles as to the long-term point: ownership of game assets. Thankfully, this has been addressed more than several times by the devs and all say the same: "no player-owned assets in E|D."

I'm sorry if you can't follow the argument. I guess you could do some thread reading to get the two most-often asserted positions here. Surely that would aid your comprehension. And no - I don't do anyone's homework for them.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

What I don't understand is why are some people so against bringing variety and social aspects into the game when no reasonable/credible ideas are trying to throw traditional gameplay into the garbage.

This is because half the playbase are traditional players and if putting them into the garbage the half of them will stop playing (and paying) and finally this will heavily impact the gameplay of us all.
We should respect them and their needs and socialize things very carefully and restrictive. Time will show what can work for all and where the nogos are.

Regards,
Miklos

 

[GluttonyFang]

This is because half the playbase are traditional players and if putting them into the garbage the half of them will stop playing (and paying) and finally this will heavily impact the gameplay of us all.
We should respect them and their needs and socialize things very carefully and restrictive. Time will show what can work for all and where the nogos are.

Regards,
Miklos

...

I hope you genuinely didn't read what I wrote carefully...

What I don't understand is why are some people so against bringing variety and social aspects into the game when no reasonable/credible ideas are trying to throw traditional gameplay into the garbage.


​You didn't do it on purpose, right?

 

[Garbarrage]

It's no knee-jerk reaction; those points are demanded of FD repeatedly. Again, read the last 10 pages of this thread. Perhaps you have a different idea of "clan" than "those people" - the ones demanding/wishing hard/petitioning for player control of game assets. And again, no. Just no.





Sure! Always glad to help: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=216887



Sure! See above.



Actually, no, I am focusing on the mindset of the players who say they just want little tools for in-game contacts, which is fine. However, a most-vocal segment then wants moar... and moar... and skirts around the issue & dissembles as to the long-term point: ownership of game assets. Thankfully, this has been addressed more than several times by the devs and all say the same: "no player-owned assets in E|D."

I'm sorry if you can't follow the argument. I guess you could do some thread reading to get the two most-often asserted positions here. Surely that would aid your comprehension. And no - I don't do anyone's homework for them.

This thread is about clans... you linked a thread about solo v open. Given that all modes affect the BGS, a clan in this game could exist across the various modes.

So your paranoia is completely unfounded then? Nobody demanding. Nobody strongarming.

 

[Mohrgan]

...

I hope you genuinely didn't read what I wrote carefully...​You didn't do it on purpose, right?

Even your list of reasonable features was tagged at the end with 'and all the Advanced stuff can come later". No one is stepping on reasonable ideas. The nays you are hearing are for the fine print. The 'to be named later' requirements that propagate. Forsake the cult owned assets and the dominion of space, and you have a deal. Otherwise you should and will face resistance.