Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's more like "Why not have player owned assets?" than "of course player owned structures need to be included."
The problem is that those who are vehemently opposed to it simply react violently to anything mentioned about it.

Of course the basic infrastructure for clan play would be something to facilitate better organization and private communications for the clan. Clan players can now talk to each other, and they can get together in game.

But why are these people gathering together for?
What will they gain out of it that they can't already via in-game friend or voice comms.... or if I find that too cumbersome, simply get TeamSpeak?

If there's no common goal to achieve, and everybody only earns their own credits, then this feature would be shallow.

I feel focussing on credits misses the point of a guild or group as well.

You want to present yourself, right? You want to achieve a common goal correct? Does a message saying: "Today you have earned xxx.xxx credits" provide that? For me that would be just a meaningless message adding a meaningless amount to an increasingly meaningless number.

I would be much more concerned with the status of my guild. Have those who visit see indicators of how well you're doing. Something along these lines:

How about non-monetary 'profits'. For instance, the number of advertising boards to indicate the amount of business going on. It's there, visible to all who visit to indicate how successful the outpost is. Instead of credits, player owned structures acquire status over time, which would be shown in game in all sorts of various ways. The outpost/station could go from a space-garage poor man's look to a shiny polished and glassy look. Would also provide bragging rights.

 

[Jypson]

Where that falls apart though - is you are asking for game content specifically reserved for those who wish to clan up. Those who do not are completely excluded. A separate Guild Mode has been suggested many times previously - not a separate BGS or galaxy, simply a mode where Guild Members can only see other Guild Members (not just their own group of course, but everyone who has signed up to a guild up to instance limits), where members would have their enhanced group comms, visible tabs etc. Personally I think it's a great idea. It's fallen flat on it's face every time, because it's not "Emergent Gameplay" enough for the guildies.

> Best idea I've heard all day! Sure I've only been awake a few hours, but sounds grand IMHO.

I know where you're coming from. But like I said, it's almost a standard thing in MMOs. MMOs were made for player interactions, and guilds, where available, are built on top of that framework. It's a community or co-op type of play, only difference is that it becomes an exclusive members-only community. All you have to do is to join that community if you want to experience that kind of gameplay. Otherwise, you can just carry on being a loner.

It would be logical that some tasks (let's not call them features....) will not be able to be performed by the lone wolf, especially the larger scale ones. And even if you could, it would take considerably more effort and present larger challenges.

Guild Mode? Separate from Open?
That's like saying Solo should be separate from Open (which it is, and yet isn't).
Again, while the players might not see each other, the effects will still be felt by everyone, and there'll still be unhappy "solo but open" players who just plain hate guilds.

Of course, if you're proposing Solo to be "offline", and open and guild to be completely separate and isolated universes, then you may have something there....

> I agree, sounds like it's high time to start campaigning again for offline mode! Release 1.5 as offline mode, I'll gladly buy another copy!

 

[relayer]

It's more like "Why not have player owned assets?" than "of course player owned structures need to be included."
The problem is that those who are vehemently opposed to it simply react violently to anything mentioned about it.

No one is reacting "violently" - please try to drop the emotional hysteria a notch or two.

You ask, "why not have player-owned assets?" and you get replies to that specific question, which you then wave off as either nonsense or "reacting violently." You just don't like the answers you're getting. I have not seen you support any of the broad agreements from both sides - you just say "no no no." If you don't like the answers, maybe you should reconsider your demands.

 

[Talarin]

The proposal for an Open-Guild mode, to supplement the existing three modes, was made, I expect, by those who would be content for others to enjoy Guild play while not needing to encounter Guild players in the single open game mode. Adding a mode specifically for Guild features would not be the same as suggesting players who don't want to be affected by Guild play be reduced to two mode options.

Ah yes, the "we don't want to play with Guild players" line. On account of how nasty the guildy-types will inevitably be, especially compared with Open as it stands.

Surely it is far more logical to allow Guild's to span all game modes (opening them to all players who chose to take part, irrespective of what mode they play) and introduce a dedicated PVE mode - where other Commanders are untouchable by another unless involved in PowerPlay or a Combat Zone? Solves the problem quite elegantly, would be easier on development and fulfils a demand which FD knows exists.

Technically speaking a guild setup would be nice if nothing else to have something more efficient than a GROUP list

The grouplist right now is very limited since ONLY the creator can do something.

We need a more flexible system to keep track of a group without having to contact X player and have HIM add people to that list.

This is the crux of my own frustration with regards to this topic. ED makes what should be a very simple task incredibly cumbersome, especially for large groups.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Ah yes, the "we don't want to play with Guild players" line. On account of how nasty the guildy-types will inevitably be, especially compared with Open as it stands.

It's not that anyone doesn't want to play with guild players - it would simply make more sense to have guild players playing with other guild players, and Open can continue to be the free-for-all-absolutely-anything-can-and-does-happen mode it already is. Lone Wolf players will continue to meet wings, and gangs of people determined to be unpleasant, and n00bs, and other lone wolf players, and sociable players just wanting to say hello - just like Open is now.

What a proposed Guild mode would do, however, is present a mode that could have these potential benefits for players looking for guild interaction.

1: Stringent System Resource Checks
If your system is not up to scratch, you ain't getting in. Makes the environment more pleasant for everyone with potentially large numbers of people present.

2: Internet Connectivity Check
If your connection is not up to scratch, you ain't getting in. This should include UPnP and NAT traversal checks not just to the matchmaker, but random other people connected at the same time, in order to guarantee acceptable network health at that time.

2: Matchmaker Guarantee
Bounding rules for instances could be tweaked slightly to allow easier connections for players marked as being in a guild - borderline connections could be accepted where previously they would be refused - in part due to the higher tested network health and MY assumption that guild players would remain in closer proximity to other guild players. Players with connections (and routes) that have passed the stringent checks ought to be able to string together larger instances.

3: Chat
Enable in this mode a separate chat / comms interface - perhaps accessed <console style as to not overclutter the screen. Guilds would be free to control who and what has access to these chats.

4: Group Administration
A new administration mode available from the Options menu. Membership tools for guildie stuff and a easier to manage group listing.

5: Inter-Group Administration
Galnet interaction for submitting guild events and declarations of war, slumber parties, and group-hug love-ins etc - much as happens now. Galnet news articles would be mode-wide, as now, with the option for others to completely turn them off.

6: Guild identification
Guild leaders would be able to submit their group name as can happen at the moment. Joined players should have a tag indicating said membership visible. It cannot be turned off for "false-flag" lulz. Once the groups reach certain size or notoriety levels, FD at their request ask Guild leadership for an identifying logo that can be placed on their ships.

7: Guild asset ownership
Not a chance

8: Guild asset ownership
Not a chance This point is so important that it needs mentioning twice.

Surely it is far more logical to allow Guild's to span all game modes (opening them to all players who chose to take part, irrespective of what mode they play) and introduce a dedicated PVE mode - where other Commanders are untouchable by another unless involved in PowerPlay or a Combat Zone? Solves the problem quite elegantly, would be easier on development and fulfils a demand which FD knows exists.

I personally don't see the logic there.



This is the crux of my own frustration with regards to this topic. ED makes what should be a very simple task incredibly cumbersome, especially for large groups.[/QUOTE]

 

[Talarin]

It's not that anyone doesn't want to play with guild players - it would simply make more sense to have guild players playing with other guild players, and Open can continue to be the free-for-all-absolutely-anything-can-and-does-happen mode it already is. Lone Wolf players will continue to meet wings, and gangs of people determined to be unpleasant, and n00bs, and other lone wolf players, and sociable players just wanting to say hello - just like Open is now.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the chief reason for opposition to the idea of Clan features was the potential for the game to turn into a gank-fest or an environment in which a lone player is effectively disadvantaged if they decide not to join a group.

It seems that you think that groups only want to take on/interact with other groups. I don't think that's true - but I can only speak for myself.

What a proposed Guild mode would do, however, is present a mode that could have these potential benefits for players looking for guild interaction.

1: Stringent System Resource Checks
2: Internet Connectivity Check
3: Matchmaker Guarantee

I can see the point you're driving at, but those QoL enhancements are extremely minor compared to the social aspect of grouping up. I concede that they would allow larger numbers of players within an island, but that's not one of the major features being asked for. (But yes, a minority of players do want massive PvP action - perhaps one of them could answer the attractiveness of the proposition?)

4: Chat
5: Group Administration
6: Inter-Group Administration
7: Guild identification

Points 4 and 5 should be present in game, with or without a dedicated mode or formal acknowledgement of player groups. For points 6 and 7; my own (current) ambitions are geared towards the minor faction allegiance system that's been discussed. But, I do feel that if clan systems are created - the membership of said player should be clear to all. The tag style of thing... naaaah. I just want to be able to group up better with friends and friends of friends. Seeing [LOLZ] MyNameHere doesn't fit the vision I have, although I know some players do want tagging.

I'm with you on asset ownership, in that I feel it's not desirable. I am sketching out an idea for "island-only" assets (minor assets owned by a single player fulfilling a specific purpose, available to all including lone players - but especially useful for groups/wings) but I haven't thought it through properly yet.

I personally don't see the logic there.

If my opinion is correct, in that the majority of resistance to the idea of clans in-game is unwanted PVP/disadvantage to those without - then introducing both a clan system which cannot transfer undue advantage to those that use it AND a mode in which unwanted PVP can't happen (addressing the needs of those players who like multiplayer, but not confrontational action) then surely that ticks everyone's boxes?

 

[Don_Von_Hulio]

No.

Personal opinion on guilds in general aside, Elite already has too much "player interaction" features and not enough "game". I dont want to see Square Brackets in game because i dont consider Elite a stereotypical MMO.... even though this seems like the path its heading down as days go by. I bought Elite expecting a rich single player experience... and im still waiting on that experience. :/

 

[Asp Explorer]

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the chief reason for opposition to the idea of Clan features was the potential for the game to turn into a gank-fest or an environment in which a lone player is effectively disadvantaged if they decide not to join a group.

An environment populated entirely by guilds would make ganking unlikely, as everyone knows everyone else is going to ge in a guild and probably winged up. There would be no lone players at a disadvantage.

It seems that you think that groups only want to take on/interact with other groups. I don't think that's true - but I can only speak for myself.

Does that mean guilds are out for ganking disadvantaged lone players?

I can see the point you're driving at, but those QoL enhancements are extremely minor compared to the social aspect of grouping up. I concede that they would allow larger numbers of players within an island, but that's not one of the major features being asked for. (But yes, a minority of players do want massive PvP action - perhaps one of them could answer the attractiveness of the proposition?)

These "QoL enhancements" would ensure that every player could meet every other player to the best of the instance handler's possibility. Otherwise instances would break and you'd still have people moaning about not seeing anyone to gank.

Points 4 and 5 should be present in game, with or without a dedicated mode or formal acknowledgement of player groups. For points 6 and 7; my own (current) ambitions are geared towards the minor faction allegiance system that's been discussed. But, I do feel that if clan systems are created - the membership of said player should be clear to all. The tag style of thing... naaaah. I just want to be able to group up better with friends and friends of friends. Seeing [LOLZ] MyNameHere doesn't fit the vision I have, although I know some players do want tagging.

You'd have to ask more guildies about tags and chat.

I'm with you on asset ownership, in that I feel it's not desirable. I am sketching out an idea for "island-only" assets (minor assets owned by a single player fulfilling a specific purpose, available to all including lone players - but especially useful for groups/wings) but I haven't thought it through properly yet.

I'm glad we can agree.

If my opinion is correct, in that the majority of resistance to the idea of clans in-game is unwanted PVP/disadvantage to those without - then introducing both a clan system which cannot transfer undue advantage to those that use it AND a mode in which unwanted PVP can't happen (addressing the needs of those players who like multiplayer, but not confrontational action) then surely that ticks everyone's boxes?

You'd have to ask the Pro-PvE guys about that. I'm a happy Open player.

 

[dxm55]

I feel focussing on credits misses the point of a guild or group as well.

You want to present yourself, right? You want to achieve a common goal correct? Does a message saying: "Today you have earned xxx.xxx credits" provide that? For me that would be just a meaningless message adding a meaningless amount to an increasingly meaningless number.

I would be much more concerned with the status of my guild. Have those who visit see indicators of how well you're doing. Something along these lines:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=221607&page=7&p=3396647&viewfull=1#post3396647

In any game that has virtual currency, the major point of it all has always been about the accumulation of wealth because... that's just how things work.
Yes, it would be good to have statistics and metrics to see how successful your assets are.

Fleet ranking. Top fleet. Unfortunately, there are many solo players who are against the idea of asset ownership, and they fall into two categories
- I'm afraid that these fleets will rule that area of space, or affect the economy there and ruin my trade route.... *bawl*
- These fleets will have access to cooperative gameplay features (and perceived advantages) that I, as a solo player won't. So if I can't have it, they should not have it... *bawl*

So, even is asset ownership were introduced, it would have to be done in a way that does not skew the BGS at all, if possible. Or at least, minimally.

So in the end, if you could build assets, they'd have to be things like little mining outposts, or surface/orbital docking outposts which do little more than serve as replenishment points and a shiny trophy that basically says "Look at what my fleet have built, cooperatively!". All that popularity rating or business, which can bring in credits for the fleet, would be detrimental to balance, as they say. So.... too bad, that can't be done.

But yes, spending credits and pooling resources just to build an outpost for the clan would be considered a new goal in the game, no matter how cosmetic it would be. It would be the cosmic equivalent of spraying graffiti on a wall somewhere, but it would probably still move community or coop gameplay in a new direction than what is now essentially a lone wolf world.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Unfortunately, there are many solo players who are against the idea of asset ownership, and they fall into two categories
- I'm afraid that these fleets will rule that area of space, or affect the economy there and ruin my trade route.... *bawl*
- These fleets will have access to cooperative gameplay features (and perceived advantages) that I, as a solo player won't. So if I can't have it, they should not have it... *bawl*

There is a third category. Those who wish to see the BGS Powers (the real owners of space) stomp uppity rebels into goo. Doesn't matter if you are pledged to a Power or not, you have no sanction nor authority granted to you to do as you please, and the opposing Powers might find it interesting to send their newest military recruits (political activists and potential defectors) to see just what a capital-ship stomping on a player-base looks like

 

[dxm55]

There is a third category. Those who wish to see the BGS Powers (the real owners of space) stomp uppity rebels into goo. Doesn't matter if you are pledged to a Power or not, you have no sanction nor authority granted to you to do as you please, and the opposing Powers might find it interesting to send their newest military recruits (political activists and potential defectors) to see just what a capital-ship stomping on a player-base looks like

Fleets may already be aligned to any one of those powers.
Or they could simply be activity focused, like trading, exploration, mining, bounty hunting, or just plain piracy.

But yes, guild assets should be vulnerable to attack and destruction. Otherwise there'd be no risk to them. And no risk = no fun.

 

[relayer]

Unfortunately, there are many solo players who are against the idea of asset ownership, and they fall into two categories
- I'm afraid that these fleets will rule that area of space, or affect the economy there and ruin my trade route.... *bawl*
- These fleets will have access to cooperative gameplay features (and perceived advantages) that I, as a solo player won't. So if I can't have it, they should not have it...

There's a third category - people who have watched such things destroy games before and are aware that other game companies besides FD are now incorporating mechanisms/features that let players decide who they want to play with. People who have left other games because of the drama from the Guilds/Clans; people who don't want FD to do the same thing as that other game; you know, the spreadsheet one, but a new game.

Also like to point out your "we can haz cwanz pweez?" "innocent question" has now turned into a litany of ownership, right on up to cap ships, and you are doing more damage than anyone else could to your "position."

even is asset ownership were introduced, it would have to be done in a way that does not skew the BGS at all, if possible. Or at least, minimally.

"Even if" lol! What the hay, let it tromp all over the BGS! You inch forward with your demands every couple of posts. Why not let it all out? You'll feel better.

EDIT: I guess a fourth category, as Asp has precedence in the post-order. In fact, I like that category too, so put me down for both

 

[dynamicbob]

making sure the background simulation is given top priority but in a way that supports solo, open and private

individual and groups as a whole ( and disorganised groups of individuals who might just be friends)

DDA forum has all the answers

 

[Talarin]

An environment populated entirely by guilds would make ganking unlikely, as everyone knows everyone else is going to ge in a guild and probably winged up. There would be no lone players at a disadvantage.

But it would be the epitome of the "ossified" gameplay that FD want to avoid. It would ossify in a different way, for sure - but still it would have a limited shelf life simply the player numbers would only really go down. Seriously, the only thing a "Guild-mode" achieves is to separate out the playbase - and doesn't actually fulfil the needs of the players who want to group up.

Does that mean guilds are out for ganking disadvantaged lone players?

Some, yes. Not all. Not even a majority.

These "QoL enhancements" would ensure that every player could meet every other player to the best of the instance handler's possibility. Otherwise instances would break and you'd still have people moaning about not seeing anyone to gank.

I'd expect the engine to ALWAYS to it's best to ensure that every player could meet every other player.

There is a third category. Those who wish to see the BGS Powers (the real owners of space) stomp uppity rebels into goo. Doesn't matter if you are pledged to a Power or not, you have no sanction nor authority granted to you to do as you please, and the opposing Powers might find it interesting to send their newest military recruits (political activists and potential defectors) to see just what a capital-ship stomping on a player-base looks like

To a degree, why not exactly that? If a group's in-game reputation drops enough why wouldn't a major or minor power send something big after them? That's good emergent gameplay and would be a great experience for any players involved on either side of the conflict.

(That said, the exact same should be asked of minor factions themselves - major factions feel very static at the moment.)

There's a third category - people who have watched such things destroy games before and are aware that other game companies besides FD are now incorporating mechanisms/features that let players decide who they want to play with. People who have left other games because of the drama from the Guilds/Clans; people who don't want FD to do the same thing as that other game; you know, the spreadsheet one, but a new game.

Well, allow me to turn your position around. Why don't you describe what led to people leaving these unspecified other games? What where the specific instances and issues involved? Actually add something to the discussion, rather than castigating other forum users with a generic "clans are bad, ok/clans shalt not own things" position.

Also like to point out your "we can haz cwanz pweez?" "innocent question" has now turned into a litany of ownership, right on up to cap ships, and you are doing more damage than anyone else could to your "position."

"Even if" lol! What the hay, let it tromp all over the BGS! You inch forward with your demands every couple of posts. Why not let it all out? You'll feel better.

He's trying to make the case for player-created assets with a minimal footprint in the game, not in-game core assets. You might not agree with that (or you might not have noticed the distinction) but it absolutely could be workable without raising the spectre of the "Clan says No to you" problem. So why not engage - what are your specific concerns? Player ownership of assets isn't an issue by default and don't necessarily have to impact the BGS (after all, it's player actions, not assets, which do that).

(As an aside, although I doubt it's coming - larger ships with multicrew could be a great addition to the game, especially combined with the expected revamp of the way that military missions will work. Obviously balance and NPC crewmembers would need some serious attention.)

"I don't want" is not a valid argument.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Some, yes. Not all. Not even a majority.

One would be one to many, in my opinion, of course..

"I don't want" is not a valid argument.

It's not an argument, it is a position.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=221607&page=7&p=3396647&viewfull=1#post3396647

In any game that has virtual currency, the major point of it all has always been about the accumulation of wealth because... that's just how things work.

That's just how things work.

Well, can't argue against "that's just how things work"

Yes, it would be good to have statistics and metrics to see how successful your assets are.

I didn't mention statistics or metrics.

Fleet ranking. Top fleet. Unfortunately, there are many solo players who are against the idea of asset ownership, and they fall into two categories

Back to slagging solo players. So much more productive. Oh well, I gave it a shot

I should have kept my mouth shut while I was ahead in revelling in agreeing with Varrag. My bad, so sorry.

 

[hunvagy]

Sure, add guilds and let them have their destructible bases, because of course you don't want it to be invulnerable, yes? But then, to conserve the 1:1 relation of the game universe in all modes, those bases should be also present in solo and group modes. And please don't come complaining if someone in solo mode burned your base to the ground and stole all your assets.

 

[dxm55]

I'd expect the engine to ALWAYS to it's best to ensure that every player could meet every other player.

So if I remember this right, the game creates instances of X number of players who can see each other. So players in the same area may not even see each other.

I wonder why the game doesn't create instances based on areas, like, for example entire star systems so all players in the same area will be able to see each other. I think it was stated that every system is treated like an bounded area.

There'll probably be many star system instances. But the active player logins (according to Steam) at a point in time seems to be about 10 to 15 thousand. So if we're looking at 32 player instances, that might be like 300 to 400 plus instances. So how many star systems would you think have active players in them at any given point in time anyway?
Of course, we're not taking into account the solo players.

Well, allow me to turn your position around. Why don't you describe what led to people leaving these unspecified other games? What where the specific instances and issues involved? Actually add something to the discussion, rather than castigating other forum users with a generic "clans are bad, ok/clans shalt not own things" position.

He's trying to make the case for player-created assets with a minimal footprint in the game, not in-game core assets. You might not agree with that (or you might not have noticed the distinction) but it absolutely could be workable without raising the spectre of the "Clan says No to you" problem. So why not engage - what are your specific concerns? Player ownership of assets isn't an issue by default and don't necessarily have to impact the BGS (after all, it's player actions, not assets, which do that).

"I don't want" is not a valid argument.

Heh, I've basically decided not to reply to someone who's basically redoing the 4-legs-good, 2-legs-bad thang.

There are various arguments, I can understand, about player assets affecting the BGS. But if even cosmetic assets are being frowned upon, then it's all down to personal bias and hating. Like I said, it's about "I don't get those toys, so you can't have them too".


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

That's just how things work.

Well, can't argue against "that's just how things work"


I didn't mention statistics or metrics.


Back to slagging solo players. So much more productive. Oh well, I gave it a shot

I should have kept my mouth shut while I was ahead in revelling in agreeing with Varrag. My bad, so sorry.

What else but cosmetic and bragging rights, when people are divided between clans or fleets possibly affecting the BGS?
You try to find a middle ground.

Heh. I'm not slagging solo players. I solo too when I want to accomplish tasks without interference.
But yeah... maybe I'm slagging those who are simply against an idea.... just because, Well... to protect their idea of a game, or some existing mechanics of a game that they're enjoying. I'll try NOT to, OK.

Ultimately, whether or not clan play happens, or player owned assets are implemented, I'll still be playing the game.
It's about what bells and whistles would you like to see. And to just suggest and have fun talking about it.
If it happens, great. If it doesn't, it's not the end of the world.

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

Sure, add guilds and let them have their destructible bases, because of course you don't want it to be invulnerable, yes? But then, to conserve the 1:1 relation of the game universe in all modes, those bases should be also present in solo and group modes. And please don't come complaining if someone in solo mode burned your base to the ground and stole all your assets.

That is the idea. Nothing should be invincible. A lone wolf should be able to grief a fleet/clan the same way PVP players can "grief" PVE players via piracy.

But I don't see how a base can be destroyed, if in one instance it's alone undefended by anyone whilst being attacked... and in another instance, it's being upgraded by some of the fleet members.

The only way is probably to instance it by locale or area.

 

[hunvagy]

That is the idea. Nothing should be invincible. A lone wolf should be able to grief a fleet/clan the same way PVP players can "grief" PVE players via piracy.

But I don't see how a base can be destroyed, if in one instance it's alone undefended by anyone whilst being attacked... and in another instance, it's being upgraded by some of the fleet members.

The only way is probably to instance it by locale or area.

Then you would be one of the first not to complain about this. But yes, in your comment lies the basic problem. How would guild assets or the guilds themselves look on the instances where the guild is not present? For the groups and the solo players, it would be a station/mining base/whatever bereft of life, since the only ones working on it are players. If such an option would ever present itself, I would say it would be only fair to take into account how such an asset works in the universe. As in being maintained and paid for by a minor faction with tens of thousands of possible subjects. So it should incur a high acquisition and high maintenance cost, which would represent keeping the asset running, and paying for all the npcs who actually work aboard your asset. Then it wouldn't be something lifeless in the other modes, and would make more sense to have multiple versions of it existing, as the npcs themselves would inhabit it in the modes of the game where the player owners are not present. But that's just an idea really.

And honestly, from my point of view, assets like that are the last thing I want to see implemented.

 

[Talarin]

One would be one to many, in my opinion, of course...

Yes, I agree. That actually this helps identify the one of the elements of groups that works in everyone's favour. If the game has a construct which helps associate players with each other, then reputational hits for crimes can be spread around all of the members - with associated impacts on their game environment. (Crime and punishment and appropriate impacts in the game are a different matter...)

Sure, add guilds and let them have their destructible bases, because of course you don't want it to be invulnerable, yes? But then, to conserve the 1:1 relation of the game universe in all modes, those bases should be also present in solo and group modes. And please don't come complaining if someone in solo mode burned your base to the ground and stole all your assets.

Possible implementation idea: What if a player-created asset could only exist in the presence of it's creator or another member of his group (or another group which had a defined relationship with that group or player, e.g. allied, at war)? That would make it utterly transparent to players who didn't care about such things. The only way you'd be able to come across such things would be to follow said owner to the location and follow their wake into that island.