Agreed. "Follow the money."
Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future
- Thread starter dementia
- Start date
Agreed. "Follow the money."
You know, I've come to respect your posts even if I didn't agree with you. However, the above statement has undone at least 3 levels of respect for you. It's bull fertilizer to begin with & just as skewed as you make Elite84 players out to be. Please return to your non-hyperbolic and thought-out posts please.
Why people keep conflating a resistance to guild>ownership of assets>no with a wish to improve social communication and group-building, which happen to be supported on both sides in this thread, is disingenuous at best.
Stated over and over, and over in this thread is an agreement that the game needs better organizing - everyone "admits"/wants that. No one is denying that. What they are resisting is player ownership of in-game assets. When this is stated, the "clans" guys start throwing in "communicating" and "organizing social tools" to obscure the argument about ownership.
If you look back through this thread, you'll see ownership-of-game-assets pushed repeatedly by a segment of players. They want the communication tools first, as in "let's just start there." Others are concerned that "start here" means ending up at ownership of space. And there it is; non-negotiable.
Communications/organizing tools? Yes. Player ownership of game assets? Absolutely no support for that.
Last edited:
Neither is it hard to comprehend the resistance to player ownership of in-game assets, which is where the resistance comes from.
That's because at least half of the posters in this thread push for exactly those "features." Read 'em and count 'em. They either make no bones about it or slip it in a wall of text.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
And yet again, no one is being "against" socialising/grouping functions. Not one person or post in this thread. Can we please lay this opinion to rest? It's a red herring. You know exactly what people are resisting and it's not "organizing tools."
Nope, nope and nope - no one is "afraid" of "unexpected stuff happening." For one thing, every Exploration jump is a possible loss of ship/progress. This thread is full of suggestions for change, particularly communication/organizing tools.
What we are "afraid" of (and please, what am I supposed to fear is a video game?) is that the people pushing for guild/clans often end up with "we want to own sectors/bases/stations" which is where the foot gets firmly planted in the No-zone.
"Multi Quote" is your friend CMDR
Well, allow me to explain
At the moment there are clans and factions in the game. Which makes the question in the poll ambiguous. Do you want clans and factions in the game in the future? So I thought the poll question was geared towards more intrusive clans and factions, the way they are implemented in other MMO games. Now I like the direction Frontier has chosen to tackle this feature. Control by proxy. So My answer was:
Hell no, Elite Dangerous is better for not having it and cutting its own path rather than being just like every other MMO (like) game out there.
Or: let ED continue on it's path it has taken, adding more functionality with regard to communication and organisation, but not change the nature of clans and factions as they are represented right now.
Do you see why I voted no? I hope so. Because that would mean the community as a whole has gained understanding and is just one little step closer to absolute creaminess
PP Factions aren't clans per se. They're basically just factions ala "Terrorists vs Counterterrorists", or maybe like Races, or States (or maybe sub-states, since we already have the Empire, Fed, Alliance).
The thing is that they aren't headed by a player or group of players who set the direction of that clan.
That's what players want. To be able to control their group's objectives and destiny, rather than be at the whim of some AI "leader" who makes no kind of territorial or financial expansion or effort for weeks on end until scripted by FD.
I'm willing to bet that if we removed, say, Lee Rong-Yui or whatever he's called, and replaced him with a human player named "CMDR Sum Ting Wong", you would see all kinds of trouble, wars, and heaven forbid MAJOR ACTION in space not even a month later.
Things will move faster, with risk taking, sinister, calculating, and brash humans at the forefront, making decisions. Not some scripted "AI".
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It's already happening with PP ain't it? The only difference would be that humans will defend their space more actively and aggressively against opposing sides.
Mechanics can always be built into a game to ensure that neutral players are protected from guild action, via the use of heavy penalties against clanned players.
Last edited:
That's it exactly. No one wants you to have any friends. So much so that no one even mentions better comm tools for the in-game player groups. Even the player groups currently included now. No one ever says; sure tags sounds like a fine idea. Nope. But, it's all or nothing. It's the whole re-hashed Guild/Cult/Clan idea ever over used in ever game online, or we'll just spread craziness across the thread because you won;t read what's been said.
There are tons of player groups going about their games right now. What they need are Comm's that allow them to organize, socialize, and recognize one another. What they don;t need are special bases that they own or systems they can manipulate (outside of the BSG). No one wants anyone to have any fun at the expense of any one. That's about all you can say.
And what exactly is the problem with player owned assets in a game that simulates a galaxy of 400 billion stars? You could probably give each player more than one system of their own, way outside the bubble, and still not put a dent in the galaxy.
Because the solo/friendless players are afraid that they would get shut out of a lucrative trade route or system/station that happens to be usurped by said clan.
They just won't admit it. All this blah blah bad for gameplay and stuff... is just an excuse.
There I said it.
Last edited:
You said it. You were wrong. It happens.
To be fair, there probably are a few who think that. But it's not The Johnny No-Mates & Solo-Players Hivemind Consensus. It'd be a waste of time explaining yet again from yet another point of view so I'm not going to.
And I laughed
Just because a player prefers solo or group or open, does not mean they don't have any friends. Clans can't usurp lucrative trade routes, they can shut anyone out of a system, because the Devs shut them out of the game.
That may change in the future, and I would definitely like to see players have better comms / grouping controls that they have the option of using, if they so choose.
I definitely would not like to see groups thinking they wield supreme executive power over anything.
And I laughed
Just because a player prefers solo or group or open, does not mean they don't have any friends. Clans can't usurp lucrative trade routes, they can shut anyone out of a system, because the Devs shut them out of the game.
That may change in the future, and I would definitely like to see players have better comms / grouping controls that they have the option of using, if they so choose.
I definitely would not like to see groups thinking they wield supreme executive power over anything.
Hey, I'm just trying to guess the reason why those people who're vehemently opposed to clans and/or clan-owned assets, stations or systems in the game would do so.
And this would prob be it.
FD has stated that griefing is legal gameplay. Any player can prey on any other player just because...
So why not a group of players teaming up to shut everybody else out of a system for whatever reasons, profit or otherwise?
Why should FD intervene in that? It would be like biting their own tongue or slapping themselves in the face.
All they could probably do is to implement mechanics in the game to discourage or prevent it. But then again, players will always find a way to circumvent them to varying extents.
Last edited:
Yes indeed - players can be completely non-aggressive, or seal-club everything in sight. While some acts are unpleasant (to some) or laughable (to others) it's all legitimate gameplay.
Simply because of the way instancing works. FD don't directly intervene in that - players themselves do. If you want to get a gang together and seal-club every n00b in the starter systems, you absolutely can. However, you will only get matched with players whose connections are acceptable to the matchmaker servers to plonk you all in the same instance, and if someone in your gang has an abysmal connection - you will be preferentially matched with him at the exclusion of everyone else with better connections.
Also - everyone can switch to Solo or Group whenever they want, completely bypassing any gangs that think they own anything. That makes gangs rather upset. It's delicious
I for one have no issue with certain player owned game assets. It's a pretty big universe after all. What I am against is the ownership of such things to be held almost exclusively in the hands of guilds and meaningful content that you realistically need a guild to make use of (like raids in most MMOs or town ownership).
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Solo play. We would be fine. Being locked out of owning special ships or having any hope of a space station or some such without a guild would be am issue. Though if guilds/clans could lock of stations in solo play and block access then yes, that too would be a major issue.
That's the weak part of this game, compared to some other MMOs (like for eg. EVE, where everybody is on the same page). Not everyone is in the same "universe" and sees the same thing.
Guess ED is *not* as MMO as FD advertised it to be.
Also - everyone can switch to Solo or Group whenever they want, completely bypassing any gangs that think they own anything. That makes gangs rather upset. It's delicious
That is true. But then again, clanners will probably only be interested in other clanners walking onto their turf.
FD should prob separate Solo from Open and split players into two accounts for each type of play.
Why bother with all that mess and extra development costs / time?
Just invite all the clanners/guildies/PvPers you can think of together into the Private Group Of Ultimate PvP and have at it
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There are over 30,000 posts in the threads on that particular topic (and the defence of the status quo) - here's the latest thread in the series.
No, I think FD just need to make it clearer that although PvP isn't forbidden the primary means of competing with another group is going to be indirect (via the BGS).