Which is actually a very good way of making clans accessible and even worthwhile to players in all 3 modes. You can continue to play in solo and contribute to your clan's objectives. When you think about it, and compare it to every other MMO, it's actually quite brilliant.
Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future
- Thread starter dementia
- Start date
Which is actually a very good way of making clans accessible and even worthwhile to players in all 3 modes. You can continue to play in solo and contribute to your clan's objectives. When you think about it, and compare it to every other MMO, it's actually quite brilliant.
Yep. The concept is remarkably appealing to me - especially as it gives pretty much everything BOTH sides if this discussion have wanted (barring ownership/direct control).
Just add the social functionality and we're away.
Throw in some in-game vanity items or facilities which can be rented inside existing structures (and so are available to lone players with the means) and I think it's perfect.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Just like CGs, Powerplay....
It would be interesting to learn what Frontier have in mind regarding QoL improvements for Player Groups (that sponsor Minor Factions).
That's the question I am constanly asking, too. If you limit player clans from owning assets and projecting their influence within the borders of predefined human inhabited and/or PP bubble, and also add cap to max number of outposts/systems that the clan can claim -which I think are reasonable suggestions- I really cannot see how the clans could possibly ruin anything for lone players in open. Let alone those playing in solo or group.
Last edited:
That's because they wouldn't.
I know. However, I'd like to hear someone from anti-guild camp to answer on this: would you guys be okay with guilds and guild-owned assets if they are allowed to build their outposts and claim (limited number of) systems outside of the bubble only?
Last edited:
Personally, I wouldn't much care, as long as you were somewhere far enough away that anything you do is absolutely irrelevant. Other solo players probably have other points of view. On the other hand...
Clan dude: Man, I have to fly half an hour just to get back to our pointless gang hut, and no one but us ever goes there and there's nothing to do when you finally do get there, why did FD waste effort on this, they should have let us compete with other clans for something worthwhile, not this mile wide, inch deep imitation of what we wanted! I hate you FD!
You'd still probably deny access to regular players going there or even gank them through numbers so no. This game is not for players dictating terms to others, even if you're gonna be nice. Others will abuse it. It's an open house and something FD have been protecting since its inception.
Players are free to go where they choose to, guilds would create no go areas for some players so it's off the table as far as I understand things.
There are other efforts in effect outside the bubble that don't involve clans or guilds but they do not dictate terms as to where a player can or can't go.
Speaking as someone who is a half-and-half (I am a keen supporter of clans/guilds, but asset ownership - including stations/systems): No.
Properly policed, I think it could be workable from a gameplay design point of view - but the technical hurdles and development needed for functionality which the vast majority of solo/lone players wouldn't benefit from makes it a non-starter for me.
By reading how some people say they are afraid of player groups, it gives me the feeling that when Thargoids are gona show up and start blowing pilots left and right, there is gona be a significant amount of players from the solo crowd that will ask the Devs to make alien ships easy kills.
Last edited:
Well outside the bubble or just outside? With regard to traveltimes, it wouldn't be much use to have your guild be situated 5,000 Ly outside would it? But if it's just outside, there's little difference between in or outside the bubble.
And what are these guild-owned assets able to do?
And in what way can it be abused?
These are concerns I have.
What I would seem to be reasonable and least intrusive, is surface bases. Equipped with hangars and outfitting for instance. The instancing can make sure only guild member see this base. I can understand the appeal of a guild having a central point for it's community. A central hanger to show off each other's ships. A place where they can 'hang out'. Where you sit at the bar, see a ship landing and go: "Hey, CMDR Varrag is back, lets invite him to the bar". Best of all, it wouldn't matter where this is situation. It could be in Sol and no one would ever be the wiser, except for the guild.
And since it's not a pivotal structure for other players, unlike outposts and stations, it won't make a lick of difference.
The moment commercial options are added, you're going to mess with the BGS. Seeing how robust it is at the moment without player interference I think it would be a very, very bad idea to introduce more degrees of unpredictable freedom. You'll get thousands of CMDRs looking to break it, looking for exploits, as we see happening now already. So no commodity market for instance. No mining operations that automine and you just have to collect.
The problem would be if that content is limited to guilds/clans/etc. For assets like that I believe that they should be NPC owned, PC supported. Guilds/Clans/Etc. can form to support some factions and reap the benefits, just as solo players could. Basically better PP and BGS.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
"NPC owned, PC supported. Guilds/Clans/Etc." sounds remarkably like the Player Group supported Minor Factions that we already have - with a few additions relating to membership, communications, etc. for QoL improvements.
That's what I was saying. The system as it stands seems like a great jumping off point, but it needs so much more. I understand people want to customize things and have benefits (discounts at stations their faction owns, ability to help build and customize new outposts and stations, building and parking Capital ships in certain systems, etc.).
That is why I think player activity needs to tie in much better with minor factions, PP, etc. Right now we can support a minor faction, but to what end? We can not reap any benefits nor show alliances (unique paint jobs, message under out ships description aside from PP factions, etc.). Even in PP the benefits are limited and we can not chose a focus for the PP (such as a BH and Exploration).
Basically what I am saying is players need to have a much greater impact on the BGS. It needs to be much more customizable and meaningful. But I understand such changes would take a great deal of time (I am thinking a few years at least, as many supporting things need to be added first such as how system wide combat works).
The result of this poll is a direct reflcetion of Frontier deciding to ditch the KS-promised offline Singleplayer.
Now we have a ton of singleplayer guys affecting how the actual multiplayer part is developed: Not a good thing.
Now both sides pull their hair on this forum instead of just playing along their favored modes.
I will never understand or support a statement against player clans/factions/etc. We just witness two groups of people fundamentally differing in their opinion, playstyle, expectations.
This is poison.
Now we have a ton of singleplayer guys affecting how the actual multiplayer part is developed: Not a good thing.
Now both sides pull their hair on this forum instead of just playing along their favored modes.
I will never understand or support a statement against player clans/factions/etc. We just witness two groups of people fundamentally differing in their opinion, playstyle, expectations.
This is poison.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that Solo mode has always been part of the game design since the beginning of the Kickstarter and the fact that Offline mode was introduced part way through the KS (and, sadly, removed pre-launch), there were always going to be players who would be able to play in all three game modes - it's not simply down to spite on the part of those who resent the removal of Offline mode that Guild features are opposed. The game was pitched, funded, developed and launched with no Guild / Clan features. What is being asked for is change to that design, a year after launch, that has potential (depending on one's opinion) to change the game experience for players.
I would be very surprised if the basic outline that I've suggested a few times in this thread isn't what they have planned. Well, all except the "Want Ads" method of recruiting, which would just be a nice touch.
I'd expect (and not be irritated if my expectation isn't met) that we'll get clan chat. And as clan chat would require a method of being invited that persists between logins, a method of persistent invitation... maybe even a way of joining a clan in game.
When we get to walking around stations, it would seem to me that the medium of selling vanity items, would make clan offices/HQs an attractive option for FD... Again, I'm speculating, but I think it's a good guess at least.
They've mentioned the need to streamline the group registration process in the group forum, so I think a reasonable outside guess would be a way of allowing groups to be created by a more automated method. I played Battlestar Galactica Online. In that game, you could create a wing in the game, and a tag would automatically be placed over your ship. As a group creation method, it was very efficient. Although occasionally people would be provocative with the wing names, and Mods would need to step in, but generally it was one of the few things in the game that worked well.
I think they should do the same with minor factions. How I think it would work well, is if your group adopts an existing minor faction, for every positive action you make on behalf of that faction, your group is awarded a number of points. Once you reach a threshold, you then get the option of renaming the faction, and rewriting the other relevant info. Politics, policy, etc.
I know I'm stretching a lot here, and I'm taking myself with a pinch of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm close to the mark.
Lots of multiplayer guys not happy with guilds. Lots of single players fine with guilds.
My hair remains unpulled. I like how FD is handling factions. Don't speak for me please.
Your post is indeed poison. There is no 2 groups. There are differing opinions on those who want guilds whether that should include player owned structures for instance.
It's not a us vs them situation. Portraying it as such does indeed poison the debate, because it creates that us vs them mentality.
Last edited: