Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Deadspin]

How would you feel about a recruitment section of GalNet? Or player owned offices in NPC controlled stations (moreso if/when first person is introduced)? This second one could be a good seller for FD, an easy format to fill with vanity items .

Not sure how I would feel about a recruitment section in Galnet. Given the sheer amount of player groups that are currently involved in the game and assuming that many more would follow if the ability to actually join said player made factions was implemented I think it would really scum up the Galnet with adds, even if they were system/regionally locked.
I don't think the game needs anything more than maybe a faction decal for ships and a faction name to show up on scans when it comes to vanity items.

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?

If it's anti geek it's because it struck home with you, right? I harbor a borderline extreme dislike for the older players because, since the beginning, they have been "the voice" of the forums. Yes, these forums don't represent the majority of Elite players but hey, who reads the forums? The Devs do. So even if it's 1% of the in-game population that visits and actively posts here, the forum majority, the loudest of the naysayers, will be heard by the devs. It's been preached over and over again in these threads that "what you like may not be what other people like, deal with it" by our "veteran" crowd of Frontier players yet they're also still the first ones to cry foul en mass if something so much as scratches at the veneer of their immersion.
.
I stayed quiet for a long time on these forums, just watching. I'm at a point now where I see people complaining about something, wishing to deny the other half of the player base a basic QoL feature because it goes against how they want to play the game when in reality such a feature would have very little impact, most likely no impact, on the way they play the game or the interactions they face if implemented properly. This forum is full of knee jerk reactions from self proclaimed "original elites" to the most basic of feature discussions while they scream in fury like you've just kicked their dog if you so much as earn one more credit per hour than they did during their nightly slog through 3500/cr-ton Type 9 runs because it's somehow unfair to them.
.
All points are valid. The mods aren't going to run someone off unless they are openly insulting a player directly because everyone is entitled to an opinion but that doesn't mean it has to be written in such a way as to avoid any and all confrontation or insult. If that were the case then half of the most prolific posters on this forum would be gone for their subtle insults.

 

[Flea King]

I harbor a borderline extreme dislike for the older players because, since the beginning, they have been "the voice" of the forums.

I'm an older gamer and I like SCIENCE!

Don't make me explode everything.​

 

[Ripley76]

Frontier need to come up with ways to bring its player base together.

Player run guilds/corporations should be able to fund and operate small/large scale activities that the game already offers. We should be able to start our own minor factions and be able to build & maintain our own facilities and space stations, eventually owning systems and competing with other player factions for lucrative parts of space After alot of expense and typical ED grind perhaps some minor factions become major and start to attract the attention of the other big players in the galaxy. for me this is what powerplay should have been.

For instance say im part of a player controlled faction/corp that likes to focus on mining. Members should be able to set up there own contracts on a player owned starport bulletin board that pay its members for mining and depositing minerals in its silos. Those minerals would then need to be shipped to other areas to make the corporation profit for expantion. Contracts that offer financial reward on completion and extreme penalties for failure. Mining corps could set up operations in deep space knowing that the pickings are richer and the price is better for such a long delivery process. But having to by-pass that nasty player run pirate corp could be a problem.

this is just an example of a mining corp, different variants could exist, explorers, bounty hunters, pirates, trader guilds ect ect

 

[Deadspin]

I'm an older gamer and I like SCIENCE!

Don't make me explode everything.​

You've been fairly open to change if the short conversation we had is anything to judge by and you're far better at keeping your cool than I am. Unfortunately that puts you into a very small minority camp where my view of the forum is concerned. If only more players were like you.

 

[bigian12]

The better more basic question is, " Should FD do something to bring the community closer together?" I hope yes would be the answer to the question.

 

[Talarin]

The better more basic question is, " Should FD do something to bring the community closer together?" I hope yes would be the answer to the question.

Why should Frontier bring the community together? How do you draw a line between "bringing" and "forcing" them?

And is "clan" systems the way to do it?

 

[Deadspin]

Why should Frontier bring the community together? How do you draw a line between "bringing" and "forcing" them?

And is "clan" systems the way to do it?

We need to come together in other ways.

Clan systems wouldn't do it but I don't see many people asking for a clan system. I see a good amount of people asking to be allowed to associate themselves with their in-game player faction. Would be nice if, when someone scanned me in a RES or in super cruise, the info return said "Diamond Frogs" instead of "No Faction"

 

[MottiKhan]

We need to come together in other ways.

Clan systems wouldn't do it but I don't see many people asking for a clan system. I see a good amount of people asking to be allowed to associate themselves with their in-game player faction. Would be nice if, when someone scanned me in a RES or in super cruise, the info return said "Diamond Frogs" instead of "No Faction"

^^^ This. +1 rep. I'd like to pledge to a minor faction. I'll even buy a minor faction paint job if I could have the tag that goes with it.

 

[stephanov]

Why should Frontier bring the community together? How do you draw a line between "bringing" and "forcing" them?

And is "clan" systems the way to do it?

Just for the record, the issue at hand here is not forcing people to enter clans. Don't worry, nobody will do that to you.

Why should Frontier bring the community together?
That's an easy one. Happy customers and the harmonization of a feed-back process which would enable the devs to build on something that will truly be a muliplayer of epic proportions so that more players will join the game and the experience will be even richer and so on and so forth.

Nobody's forcing anythin on anybody here. It's just about options. Whether you use them or not is just entirely up to you.

Is not having any group support at all (besides the wing co-op concept) the way to bring the community together? (thus ignoring half of the community -I actually think it's more but the polls show about half)

 

[bigian12]

Just for the record, the issue at hand here is not forcing people to enter clans. Don't worry, nobody will do that to you.

Why should Frontier bring the community together?
That's an easy one. Happy customers and the harmonization of a feed-back process which would enable the devs to build on something that will truly be a muliplayer of epic proportions so that more players will join the game and the experience will be even richer and so on and so forth.

Nobody's forcing anythin on anybody here. It's just about options. Whether you use them or not is just entirely up to you.

Is not having any group support at all (besides the wing co-op concept) the way to bring the community together? (thus ignoring half of the community -I actually think it's more but the polls show about half)

Couldn't have said it better myself. +1

 

[bigian12]

Why do many people on the forum think, that when FD decide to add something or not, that they are being forced into it. All content in game and all content currently in the works is/will be solely up to you whether you want to be part of the content or not. You are not forced to do missions, you are not forced to trade, you are not forced to explore, you are not forced to do PP and if guilds/ clans/ corps whatever you want to call them are implemented, you will not be forced to be in one the same way you won't be forced to take part in multicrew. So just because you don't want it, does it mean it should not be put in-game? Is that just ego talking on some peoples part? Or do people generally believe that a game should only have what they want and not account for other peoples wants? This seems to be a common problem with society, the me,me,me, sod everyone else attitude.

 

[Talarin]

Just for the record, the issue at hand here is not forcing people to enter clans. Don't worry, nobody will do that to you.

Why should Frontier bring the community together?
That's an easy one. Happy customers and the harmonization of a feed-back process which would enable the devs to build on something that will truly be a muliplayer of epic proportions so that more players will join the game and the experience will be even richer and so on and so forth.

Nobody's forcing anythin on anybody here. It's just about options. Whether you use them or not is just entirely up to you.

Is not having any group support at all (besides the wing co-op concept) the way to bring the community together? (thus ignoring half of the community -I actually think it's more but the polls show about half)

Speaking as someone who is very pro-clans and clan systems - I think you're missing the concern about the impact of clans on lone players. Some people, by default, couldn't give a monkeys about "multiplayer of epic proportions" (and I'm not awfully keen on it either; clans <> epic multiplayer. EVE style wars are not my bag and not what I'm arguing for).

If the experience becomes overly centric on the multiplayer aspect, then solo players will lose out (at least on a relative basis). There has to be a cleverer way of giving all of us improvements to the game...

Why do many people on the forum think, that when FD decide to add something or not, that they are being forced into it. All content in game and all content currently in the works is/will be solely up to you whether you want to be part of the content or not. You are not forced to do missions, you are not forced to trade, you are not forced to explore, you are not forced to do PP and if guilds/ clans/ corps whatever you want to call them are implemented, you will not be forced to be in one the same way you won't be forced to take part in multicrew. So just because you don't want it, does it mean it should not be put in-game? Is that just ego talking on some peoples part? Or do people generally believe that a game should only have what they want and not account for other peoples wants? This seems to be a common problem with society, the me,me,me, sod everyone else attitude.

I agree that there is an element of nimbyism in the discussion - but every time someone raises the spectre of player-owned assets then the inevitable question of what level of control can be exerted will be asked. And that is not an unreasonable question.

 

[Commander Debic]

.
.
All points are valid. The mods aren't going to run someone off unless they are openly insulting a player directly because everyone is entitled to an opinion but that doesn't mean it has to be written in such a way as to avoid any and all confrontation or insult. If that were the case then half of the most prolific posters on this forum would be gone for their subtle insults.

Including you.

 

[Majinvash]

Including you.

And maybe you for being passive aggressive.

Certainly me, for being Openly aggressive.

OH my list of infractions is impressive.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Chris Majere]

Why do many people on the forum think, that when FD decide to add something or not, that they are being forced into it. All content in game and all content currently in the works is/will be solely up to you whether you want to be part of the content or not. You are not forced to do missions, you are not forced to trade, you are not forced to explore, you are not forced to do PP and if guilds/ clans/ corps whatever you want to call them are implemented, you will not be forced to be in one the same way you won't be forced to take part in multicrew. So just because you don't want it, does it mean it should not be put in-game? Is that just ego talking on some peoples part? Or do people generally believe that a game should only have what they want and not account for other peoples wants? This seems to be a common problem with society, the me,me,me, sod everyone else attitude.

From what I get from those who are against the implementation of player guilds, I see it as some sort of anticipation of what “could” backlash toward them, how it would affect their playstyle and what they would be forced to do, in order to counter it. I think a big chunk of the player base foresee an emergence of organized griefing styles coming from groups of players who would assemble together just for that specific reason. And this is a valid feeling that even us pro-guild folks have to admit. There are types of players out there that just want to ruin other people’s game. Does it mean the Devs should be conservative and simply NOT introduce player guilds. I think that would be sad to say the least. Should they still “carefully” look for ways to implement it so that those things do not happen? Yes, absolutely! And I think it is what we are trying to do here.

 

[Varrag]

A 5.96% majority based on 624 voters, who may or may not own the game, out of a potential c.1M players (based on the latest estimate of copies sold).

Valid point. But it's hard not to notice pretty big change in results, though. Last time similar poll has been up, anti-guild camp "won" by large margin. Something like 70:30, iirc.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Valid point. But it's hard not to notice pretty big change in results, though. Last time similar poll has been up, anti-guild camp "won" by large margin. Something like 70:30, iirc.

Citing 2 invalid polls does not make them more valid.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Valid point. But it's hard not to notice pretty big change in results, though. Last time similar poll has been up, anti-guild camp "won" by large margin. Something like 70:30, iirc.

You may be thinking of the first poll on the topic. The most recent is in this thread and it was about 2:1 in favour of Guilds (albeit with some help from advertising of the poll on another website)

From that, it could be inferred that support for Guilds has actually dropped - from c.66% to c. 53%....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why do many people on the forum think, that when FD decide to add something or not, that they are being forced into it. All content in game and all content currently in the works is/will be solely up to you whether you want to be part of the content or not. You are not forced to do missions, you are not forced to trade, you are not forced to explore, you are not forced to do PP and if guilds/ clans/ corps whatever you want to call them are implemented, you will not be forced to be in one the same way you won't be forced to take part in multicrew. So just because you don't want it, does it mean it should not be put in-game? Is that just ego talking on some peoples part? Or do people generally believe that a game should only have what they want and not account for other peoples wants? This seems to be a common problem with society, the me,me,me, sod everyone else attitude.

Just like misrepresenting other people's position is a common problem on this forum.

Few people object to ingame comms or tags for clans.

The issue is: implementing guilds/ clans/ corps is too vague to have an opion on. It goes from organised chat to full control on stations. There are guilds/ clans/ corps implementations suggested which would impact players who don't want to engage in it, and there are suggestions which don't.

Solution is to be specific in the suggestions. I hate guilds. Not because I'm afraid how they would impact me, but on principle. But I support guilds being able to organise in game, since I feel it's only natural once the option to back factions was introduced. What I don't support is guilds being able to alter the ingame parameters.

Bottomline: framing the issue as a disagreement between 2 sides is not what's going on here. Characterizing one imaginary side as egocentric is also detrimental to the discussion.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

You may be thinking of the first poll on the topic. The most recent is in this thread and it was about 2:1 in favour of Guilds (albeit with some help from advertising of the poll on another website)

From that, it could be inferred that support for Guilds has actually dropped - from c.66% to c. 53%....

Or you could infer a lot of people don't understand how polls work.