Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Robert Maynard]

I wouldn't give it the credit for a minimalist, it's something even more skeletal than a minimalist approach to MMO considering the features we have.

Opinions differ.

Well, the vicious cycle I described goes for pretty much everything in the game, I'm sure you've noticed more or less.

It seems to be as a result of PvP not being a core component of the game - it is not rewarded particularly well in-game and not at all in Powerplay.

I already mentioned Zac's statement and DB's confirmation. Where did he make an official comment recently about opposing blockades?[/QUOTE]

No mention of blockades in the quote I can find but there's this from DBOBE's interview with Arstechnica at E3:2015:

We then ran down sort of a grab-bag of other questions. More ship decorations are coming, but there’s no word yet on custom paint jobs or decals—nor is there any word yet on being able to name your ship. There are no changes planned to separate solo and online saves, and players will continue to inhabit the same shared galaxy whether they’re in solo or multiplayer—again, continuing with Braben’s contention that there’s no ‘right’ way to play.

More standardized online gaming conventions like clans or formalized player organizations aren’t in the cards, at least not for the foreseeable future. VR support for headsets other than the Oculus Rift will be handled on a case-by-case basis, but Frontier believes very strongly in VR and definitely wants to go in that direction. And there aren’t any plans at this moment to expand beyond 32 players in each instance—but it’s always a possibility in the future.

And they should start doing it at least in an experimental sense to really get some opinions off of the actual playerbase.

That'd be a welcome change.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Opposition to guilds is silly, because it cannot affect players who want no part of it. This is a sentiment that is heard often in this thread. And I'm glad to hear that sentiment. Shows understanding for those opposed to guilds.

Blockades affect players in a very direct way, and is therefor not desired by both those who oppose guilds and a large part of those who do want guilds.

 

[Talarin]

Opposition to guilds is silly, because it cannot affect players who want no part of it. This is a sentiment that is heard often in this thread. And I'm glad to hear that sentiment. Shows understanding for those opposed to guilds.

Blockades affect players in a very direct way, and is therefor not desired by both those who oppose guilds and a large part of those who do want guilds.

Whilst that's true, it's not a reason for not implementing at least the socialising/grouping functions that have been discussed (and of course, such blockades could happen right now with the systems we have in place).

Also, under the minor faction affiliate system (at least the version of it in my mind at the moment) there will be times when a blockade or other hostile activity is legitimate - for example when one player's chosen minor faction is taking hostile action against another. The key would be to not to legitimise hostile acts against those players who want or have no part of said dispute - as well as warning legitimately targeted players who might not be aware of the risk they're in through the interface (red blip on radar would do for most things).

Under this model, the player who wants no part of grouping/minor faction alliances should be just as safe as they are now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Whilst that's true, it's not a reason for not implementing at least the socialising/grouping functions that have been discussed

It sure isn't!

 

[GluttonyFang]

Opinions differ.

Well, true, as it is on every matter. Are you an experienced MMO player if you don't mind me asking? If so, what MMOs have you played?

It seems to be as a result of PvP not being a core component of the game - it is not rewarded particularly well in-game and not at all in Powerplay.

Open includes PvP, it doesn't force nor encourage PvP in anyway. Player interaction doesn't have to be hostile. However, the vicious cycle harm all player interaction, not just PK.

No mention of blockades in the quote I can find but there's this from DBOBE's interview with Arstechnica at E3:2015:

Yep, I read that, but this part of the conversation started from blockades, not DB's view on guilds and clans. Simply put, blockade is an element he doesn't seem to oppose, and it doesn't really require a large amount of players considering instancing.

Blockades were very quickly seen to be a non-starter during the Kickstarter / early development phase, with respect to enforcement, given the three game modes, instancing and now other platforms. Blockades would also seem to be one of the types of large player group behaviours that DBOBE dislikes (see his Q&A at EGX:2014).

That'd be a welcome change.

It would save a lot of time trying to tell people that their estimate of statistics have no solid ground to stand on. But I'm sure even when it's implemented people will still appeal to lack of poll options/sample error... etc...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, true, as it is on every matter. Are you an experienced MMO player if you don't mind me asking? If so, what MMOs have you played?

If I were not, would it make my opinion less valid? If this game does not follow the tropes of other games then that is Frontier's decision ultimately.

Open includes PvP, it doesn't force nor encourage PvP in anyway. Player interaction doesn't have to be hostile. However, the vicious cycle harm all player interaction, not just PK.

Of course player interaction does not need to be hostile. Which particular viscious cycle are you referring to?

Yep, I read that, but this part of the conversation started from blockades, not DB's view on guilds and clans. Simply put, blockade is an element he doesn't seem to oppose, and it doesn't really require a large amount of players considering instancing.

He certainly did seem to oppose blockades during his EGX:2014 Q&A - as one of the types of behaviour that large player groups he does not seem to be in favour of. While the Hutton Orbital CG was a resounding success with some opposition, it was one blockade. If they were to become commonplace, I do wonder what his reaction would be.

It would save a lot of time trying to tell people that their estimate of statistics have no solid ground to stand on. But I'm sure even when it's implemented people will still appeal to lack of poll options/sample error... etc...

Indeed - if a significant portion of players voted, of course.

 

[GluttonyFang]

If I were not, would it make my opinion less valid? If this game does not follow the tropes of other games then that is Frontier's decision ultimately.

It is, however, when we discuss the genre tag game companies deploy to advertise a game, wouldn't people who have thorough experience with a certain tag have better accuracy in describing what the tag is expected to entail? And if a tag falls short of the expectation of people with said experience by a large margin, I think anyone would question the marketing at that point.

If you are not experienced with MMO, I merely find your opinion on MMOs less credible, not that it is invalid.

Of course player interaction does not need to be hostile. Which particular viscious cycle are you referring to?

It's quite similar to the dilemma Anthony Downs introduced in his model of rationality and the paradox of voters in a democracy.

Take BH for example, encountering another player in a RES site is just a pain. At times the instance gets ruined and spawn content mutates dramatically. Kill stealing is another issue. Winging up means individually the players receive less credit per ship. Trading dividends requires synchronization in jumping, and close to no one's trading due to Robigo. Escorts have no place since NPCs are a joke and no one in the right mind goes to Open if they are maximizing their profit. Mining together just slows each other down, collector limpets fight with one another. Exploration... just no need...

He certainly did seem to oppose blockades during his EGX:2014 Q&A - as one of the types of behaviour that large player groups he does not seem to be in favour of. While the Hutton Orbital CG was a resounding success with some opposition, it was one blockade. If they were to become commonplace, I do wonder what his reaction would be.

That speculation is anyone's guess.

Indeed - if a significant portion of players voted, of course.

Hopefully there will be sufficient incentive to participate in the poll.

Edit:

Gluttony breaking quoting 2016

 

[Cmdr_Prussian]

I think the problem is that upon suggesting player groups/clans we, as experience players mostly regarding game design, automatically assume FDEV take certain balancing measurements. For example, this would mean not allowing 32 allied players into one instance because the instance can hold 32 players. the max would be 16, but probably something like 12, so that 24 players divided into 2 factions could be in the same instance max, and 8 slots remain reserved for third party people, just to name one example.

Even then, I don't see how blockades could matter too much in a game with 20.000 habitated systems, a multitude of that in stations, and 400 billion system to evade to or potentially even expand to as well. If somebody shies away from even this small kind of only potential opposition, then he can still play solo or private.
Other than that NPC blockades for example would also be a nice thing. People just seem to be afraid of any kind of unexpected stuff happening, or to be challenged. I think they may wanna expand their comfort zone and might discover a VERY interesting world.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is, however, when we discuss the genre tag game companies deploy to advertise a game, wouldn't people who have thorough experience with a certain tag have better accuracy in describing what the tag is expected to entail? And if a tag falls short of the expectation of people with said experience by a large margin, I think anyone would question the marketing at that point.

Why does a new MMO require to follow the tropes of previous MMO? Given Frontier's unconventional approach to player segregation (choice of three modes, mode mobility), this can hardly be considered to be a conventional MMO. Similarly there were no Clans / Guilds / Corps included in the game design in the first three years of the project - which tends to reinforce the contention that this is not a conventional MMO. If / when QoL features for Player Groups sponsoring Minor Factions are introduced, I would not necessarily expect them to be cookie cutter implementations of features found in other games.

Take BH for example, encountering another player in a RES site is just a pain. At times the instance gets ruined and spawn content mutates dramatically. Kill stealing is another issue. Winging up means individually the players receive less credit per ship. Trading dividends requires synchronization in jumping, and close to no one's trading due to Robigo. Escorts have no place since NPCs are a joke and no one in the right mind goes to Open if they are maximizing their profit. Mining together just slows each other down, collector limpets fight with one another. Exploration... just no need...

Instance mutation is one issue. Kill stealing is by design - Mike Evans has commented to that effect previously. While winging up splits rewards it also confers the benefit of safety in numbers. Trading dividends require both players to be in area - not unreasonable - it just takes a bit of effort. Robigo is its own phenomenon (and I don't expect it's the only one). Escorts have a place if players want to play that way. NPC difficulty is a tougher one - back to the fact that the game needs to be able to be played in Solo.

Gluttony breaking quoting 2016

All fixed now....

 

[Cmdr_Prussian]

Why does a new MMO require to follow the tropes of previous MMO? Given Frontier's unconventional approach to player segregation (choice of three modes, mode mobility), this can hardly be considered to be a conventional MMO. Similarly there were no Clans / Guilds / Corps included in the game design in the first three years of the project - which tends to reinforce the contention that this is not a conventional MMO. If / when QoL features for Player Groups sponsoring Minor Factions are introduced, I would not necessarily expect them to be cookie cutter implementations of features found in other games.



Instance mutation is one issue. Kill stealing is by design - Mike Evans has commented to that effect previously. While winging up splits rewards it also confers the benefit of safety in numbers. Trading dividends require both players to be in area - not unreasonable - it just takes a bit of effort. Robigo is its own phenomenon (and I don't expect it's the only one). Escorts have a place if players want to play that way. NPC difficulty is a tougher one - back to the fact that the game needs to be able to be played in Solo.



All fixed now....

Sorry, but if its not an MMO, people shouldn't call it an MMO.
Thats how language works - terms carry meanings. If you exchange them without telling anyone you will have people with wrong expectations, which is what we have all over the ed playerbase. Of course, most MMOs like WoW and its derivatives are horrible games with entirely wrong motivations to be developed and played - but there are a few core elements to the meaning MMO that would actually greatly enhance ed, even though I understand this is just my oppinion.

(Not directed specifically at robert from here on

Those things are among but not limited to:
-Many forms of player interaction
-(Actually) Many players interacting
-Persistent world with the possibility for things to be changed, or even created, by players. (And no, Devs manually giving ONE minor faction a rename in a text file for players is not a "feature" that anyone can take part in, its a once-in-a-lifetime incident for very very few people, and certainly not a "living and breathing universe"
-Inbuilt player grouping functionality (4 is not "massive")

Making a singleplayer game where everyone has to connect to a server to play doesnt make it an MMO. And even if that may not violate the definition, its what 99% of the people are accustomed to and have come to expect when they hear the term MMO.
Don't say FDEV didn't know that. Saying that would greatly discredit them.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Why does a new MMO require to follow the tropes of previous MMO? Given Frontier's unconventional approach to player segregation (choice of three modes, mode mobility), this can hardly be considered to be a conventional MMO. Similarly there were no Clans / Guilds / Corps included in the game design in the first three years of the project - which tends to reinforce the contention that this is not a conventional MMO. If / when QoL features for Player Groups sponsoring Minor Factions are introduced, I would not necessarily expect them to be cookie cutter implementations of features found in other games.

The problem is that there are plenty of MMOs that are unconventional in their own ways and still satisfy experienced MMO players that try to place their faith in those that advertise their games as MMO. If a game is willing to use the MMO tag, a game should be expecting the attracted audience to come for a MMO experience, with perhaps a twist here or there. But making a game that has a skeletal or less than skeletal features that constitute a MMO, there must be some redeeming value for the MMO fans, but there isn't in ED, hence why people will question the advertisement/complain more than usual.

Instance mutation is one issue. Kill stealing is by design - Mike Evans has commented to that effect previously. While winging up splits rewards it also confers the benefit of safety in numbers. Trading dividends require both players to be in area - not unreasonable - it just takes a bit of effort. Robigo is its own phenomenon (and I don't expect it's the only one). Escorts have a place if players want to play that way. NPC difficulty is a tougher one - back to the fact that the game needs to be able to be played in Solo.

The problem is a lot of the explanation you provided give little to no reward to people playing as a group, and it doesn't really keep players together as drive them apart since playing alone is usually more rewarding from a gameplay stand point. Kill-stealing reduces income, and when there's a way to avoid it, people will avoid it. Typical open world PvP MMO game have lots and lots of PvP at good farm spots for a reason, but when this is completely nullified with modes, only people who are bored out of their mind and don't care about credits will be in Open. Then when some people get bored they start to harass other players out of boredom, further driving people away from the diverse interactive mode, and this vicious cycle is started by no other than FD and their game design. By the time people get synchronized with their trading buddies, they could have made much more than what the dividends will offer through the time wasted waiting.

This is the phenomenon of a shoehorned in MP. I would have let ED off the hook if it merely advertised itself as MP/Co-op, but when it wears a MMO tag on its shirt, that's when I'm ready to seriously question the advertisement tactics/ambition.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would have let ED off the hook if it merely advertised itself as MP/Co-op, but when it wears a MMO tag on its shirt, that's when I'm ready to seriously question the advertisement tactics/ambition.

You should take it up with Frontier's advertising team - it would be interesting to find out the instigator of the addition of "MMO" to the advertising.

 

[GluttonyFang]

You should take it up with Frontier's advertising team - it would be interesting to find out the instigator of the addition of "MMO" to the advertising.

Lol no need, they are getting the repercussion they deserve with negative reviews and dissatisfied customers.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Lol no need, they are getting the repercussion they deserve with negative reviews and dissatisfied customers.

I bought a Nissan Versa, but I didn't have a good moan that it wasn't a Skyline

 

[GluttonyFang]

I bought a Nissan Versa, but I didn't have a good moan that it wasn't a Skyline

Well, I'm happy I don't have to explain to customers that they indeed purchased rubies when the company I work sell rocks painted red when they come complaining

Edit:

Drank too much today... Frontier Foruming while intoxicated is not a good idea... (Fixing typos)

 

[Mohrgan]

Well, I'm happy I don't have to explain to customers that the they indeed purchased rubies when the company I work sell rocks painted red when they come complaining

Yup, the differences in the interpretation of just what MMO means to the buying public, is just like the difference between red painted rocks, and rubies...

 

[GluttonyFang]

Yup, the differences in the interpretation of just what MMO means to the buying public, is just like the difference between red painted rocks, and rubies...

Welp, questionable advertisements are questionable advertisements, the concept applies to quite a lot of things.

 

[Y'Berion]

MMO is MMO. There is little point to discuss the meaning in 2016. Certain standards has been long established through rise and fall of countless MMO games in the past two decades - process which Frontier has largely slept away while working on stuff like Kinectimals or, dunno... Disneyland Adventures. When you slap "MMO" label onto something you better make sure that it has what is generally expected from an MMO. One such thing is freedom given to players to form persistent groups and pursue their own goals as they see fit. This is particularly important for sandbox games, which ED tries to be; albeit not with much success.

Needles to say, I voted YES.

 

[DD_Crash]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but a when the game was in beta all this pressure for Guild/Clan/Squad was predicted. The creep of features to allow this and the outcome of even seemingly minor request like "Let us be able to give my friend some credits" will turn into "let us be able to charge people for entering our space" and then "we NEED to be able to own stations" followed by "Get rid of Solo and Group to give us more targets" I really hope it stays like it is.I have tried the search but the thread had Goonswarm in the name. I have nothing against galaxy wide chat but player owned capital ships/stations/bases/forced open play is not what I signed up for.

 

[bootsam]

The game will turn into Monopoly. The bank will get tossed in the air and everyone will get the hump.