Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Asp Explorer]

That's very nice and impressively done - and it would make a great front end for guildie stuff.

However, nobodyy has yet reached a firm conclusion on what "guildie stuff" actually is at a fundamental level as far as how it fits into the game, and how it affects everyone in the game - wether in a guild or not.

 

[dxm55]

So now you're back at the point which has been made many times - people in the thread are asking "what exactly do you mean by "have clans" and what does that entail? They are asking for clarification per your quote above; separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were. You then invent a false, extreme position for them based on the answers you don't like and assign it to people whose ideas don't fit in with yours.

OK let's take another approach at this, instead of the constant bickering.

Since there is already a Clan Feature thread here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=224611
I'll stick to talking about asset ownership over there.


In the meantime, I'll simply say this to your question:
"what exactly do you mean by "have clans" and what does that entail?
Short Answer, with no elaboration... because that always ends up in a mess:
- The ability to have a private and in-game featured private comms room/channel for the clan, both in stations and onboard our ships
- A reason for clans to exist, besides just socially.
- The clan must be able to so called "Blaze their own trail", as the game's motto says, and not simply be subservient to a faction or power.
- So, there has to be goals that are determined by the clan, and for the clan only, whether that means aligning themselves with a minor power, a faction, or just for exploration, piracy, trading
- These goals may be (in game terms) physical, monetary, prestige, or to advance or even work against the game's backstory, whatever the clan decides

 

[Cowboy Bats]

it doesn't have to be complicated you could easily have a feature like this in the game :

btw I made this in photoshop in like 15-20 minutes and I'm sure frontier could do much better..

http://i.imgur.com/s6LuC52.jpg

Thank you for this. 12 guild controlled capital ships says it all. Not no, but hell no. This would absolutely ruin the game beyond all recognition.

 

[Sole Hunter]

Thank you for this. 12 guild controlled capital ships says it all. Not no, but hell no. This would absolutely ruin the game beyond all recognition.

It's just random text to fill the picture to make it more interesting, chill out. I could have replaced it with anything I just didn't want the picture to be blank.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Not no, but hell no.

10 LET A=INFINITY
20 LET B=(0/0)
30 LET N$="NO!"
40 FOR X=1 TO A
50 PRINT N$
60 IF A/B>=0 THEN GOTO 80
70 NEXT X
80 RANDOMIZE USR 0

 

[Cowboy Bats]

10 LET A=INFINITY
20 LET B=(0/0)
30 LET N$="NO!"
40 FOR X=1 TO A
50 PRINT N$
60 IF A/B>=0 THEN GOTO 80
70 NEXT X
80 RANDOMIZE USR 0

Wow, good old line numbered BASIC. That really harkens back to the days of the original Elite.

 

[hunvagy]

10 LET A=INFINITY
20 LET B=(0/0)
30 LET N$="NO!"
40 FOR X=1 TO A
50 PRINT N$
60 IF A/B>=0 THEN GOTO 80
70 NEXT X
80 RANDOMIZE USR 0

Wouldn't line 20 cause your beautiful code to die a horrible death? Division by zero and all that

 

[Talarin]

That isn't the case. In Elite, association with Minor Factions is how you start a Guild/Clan/Cult. PG/MF groups are what Fleets/Corps are in Elite. That's why FD has started that process, to allow social groups to get into the game. Read up some. It's already happening right under your nose.

As I understand it, we've collectively implied that rather than it being the official position. It seems logical, but I'm not sure that's set in stone. (Unless I've missed an announcement?)

That's not a guild and it's not what we want. We want Player created guilds that are fully managed by players. Check real MMOs (World of Warcraft, Eve Online) on how it's properly done.

The majority voted in favor of guilds and there's enough requests for it anyway. Fdev has to make the next move.

We do, do we? This is one of those few cases where DBOBE has made a statement which directly intersects with that vision; the idea of this eventually becoming an executive management game isn't going to happen. So player ownership of assets and governance, if it happens at all, will be extremely limited.

That doesn't mean that ideas shouldn't be explored and debated, but it might be valuable to set expectations around that statement.

Regarding what FD must do, because of a limited poll with awful options - they don't have to do anything. The poll neither reinforces or undermines anyones position.

There's no link between owning the game and creating a forum account - therefore non-players can vote.

If push came to shove, couldn't a "validated player" group be set up by comparing the sign-up email addresses of forum users and game owners? Not sure if that would be useful or not, but it would be a quick way to identify actual players.

To begin with, you are inventing a position for me and then arguing it.

I believe you referred to sweeping generalisations with no factual basis in response to an opposition position as a "mirror defense"?

More seriously, you're attempting to place the burden of justification and feature definition onto those suggesting change. The point I'm making is that it's a two way street. As I said; "I don't want" isn't a valid argument - whether talking about clans as a whole, player ownership, the price of fish etc etc (although, as pointed out by Robert - it is a valid position).

Since you seem to like the word "ossify" I'll give it back to you - it has been described more than a few times why a lot of ex-EvE players left the game - because ownership of space/assets ossified the game, discouraging new players. It's not only EvE - plenty examples of the detrimental effect of player asset control and claiming space have been given in this thread.

No, specific examples haven't been given (at least not that I've noticed - I'm happy to be corrected). I've participated in a number of these threads on this topic and, oddly enough, specifics are very rarely given. "It ossified", "Clans ruined the game", "So much drama" etc are non-specific statements. I'm not saying that they're wrong or aren't a valid contribution, but it does make addressing the actual issues really difficult as the goalposts are invariably moved as what would appear to be good compromises are suggested.

So - how did this ossification present itself? How would you have combatted it?

Again, inventing a position for me and then arguing it. You call "fleets," "capital ships" and etc. minimal footprint? The demand list just grows and grows. And - I am one of the first people in this thread who has repeatedly been asking for a distinction and clarification on what, exactly, "want Guilds" entails. It's that simple. Define your terms.

Already answered that with a lengthy response earlier in the thread. Your question has a) been repeatedly answered with different answers in different ways by different people and b) unreasonable because of the wide range of answers you'll get. It quite literally means different things to different people.

I believe that, in this instance, "fleets" are not what you think they are. You responded to a post about player-created and owned structures, not major assets - specifically being discussed with minimal footprints in mind. What are the flaws in that suggestion? What difference does a small planetary/asteroid base for clan-types to focus on make to you?

Nebulous "I want" arguments aren't valid either.

Generally though, the "I wants" haven't been all nebulous. They have been variable, it's true. Some have been ill-thought out or contentious. But the majority have been detailed at at least a high level.

- The clan must be able to so called "Blaze their own trail", as the game's motto says, and not simply be subservient to a faction or power.
- So, there has to be goals that are determined by the clan, and for the clan only, whether that means aligning themselves with a minor power, a faction, or just for exploration, piracy, trading

Two thoughts on that - if it goes down the minor faction-linkage route, would a group linking to an independent faction be acceptable? I'm not a fan of "goals for the clan-only". Gating content isn't the way to do things. By all means have stuff that is difficult or near impossible to do without aid (i.e. wingmen at the least), but don't lock people out of stuff...

 

[Asp Explorer]

Wouldn't line 20 cause your beautiful code to die a horrible death? Division by zero and all that

Only if you RUN it :d

 

[Xender]

I tried recently to figure why many peoples complains about Elite gamplay. Some of them have right some not.
In my opinion one of the biggest problem is shallow player interaction, it is related to pve and pvp.

I have idea which propably can solve a bit this problem!

Recently Frontier gives player opportunity to create factions. It is great but still it is quite simple.
I think next step should be option to pledge allegiance to this faction and support it more official. It will allow players to treat space of action as if is their "home space".
Next step for that kind of players should be acting like System Authority Vessels. Players should be able to interdict, scan other players in faction system without pelanties for that. Also if someone smuggling, faction players should have rights to kill that person.

I think this will make Elite world more personal and player driven, also I think all of it is possible with current instance technology.

Another great addition will be changing instance system to putting all players to one instance until this instance is full.

 

[relayer]

OK let's take another approach at this, instead of the constant bickering.

Since there is already a Clan Feature thread here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=224611
I'll stick to talking about asset ownership over there.

Nice try with the "I won't talk about it here." If there's a separate thread for this nonsense, then why does it keep popping up here? You should tell all the "i want assets for clans" people to go there; they are the ones cluttering up this thread with "I want" statements.


You cannot separate the question of ownership of assets from this discussion as it constantly comes up, like a bad taco, in this thread as a demand/gimme from certain extreme elements. Every time it does come up, I, and others, will be there to put our foot down and say, "no."

---

As I understand it, we've collectively implied that rather than it being the official position. It seems logical, but I'm not sure that's set in stone. (Unless I've missed an announcement?

*yawn* more word-games. Once again you are trying to pin a position on me that is not mine and then arguing with yourself like a sock puppet.

"to the cornfield!"

 

[Talarin]

Nice try with the "I won't talk about it here." If there's a separate thread for this nonsense, then why does it keep popping up here? You should tell all the "i want assets for clans" people to go there; they are the ones cluttering up this thread with "I want" statements.

You cannot separate the question of ownership of assets from this discussion as it constantly comes up, like a bad taco, in this thread as a demand/gimme from certain extreme elements. Every time it does come up, I, and others, will be there to put our foot down and say, "no."

For some people, two are linked - it's part of the feature set they'd like. Your impression of demands is a shame - but I suspect you're misinterpreting suggestions and discussion as something more sinister.

However, your hubris gives you away. No matter what ideas people come up with on the particular topic, or compromises they'll attempt to reach in their suggestions - you and others will always say "no". It's a shame it took so long for you to admit it. But, as has been repeatedly said; it's not up to you, or me, or the mods so please carrying on saying no as loudly as you like. Without actually putting forward an argument that could change someone's mind, you're effectively preaching to the people who have also already made their mind up (either way).

The only thing we can do is bandy ideas around and just perhaps someone at FD will say; "you know, that's not a bad idea". Otherwise, what's the point?

*yawn* more word-games. Once again you are trying to pin a position on me that is not mine and then arguing with yourself like a sock puppet.

Would you care to re-read the comment you quoted and who it was directed at? I've pinned no positions on anyone in the post (ironically I did pin a position on you earlier in the thread, a position which appears to have been proven correct). You could respond to the whole post, especially the bits that actually were directed at you, but I suspect that you won't. It's more difficult to be constructive, isn't it?

One element of the guild/clan play which I don't think has been discussed at any length is the "community" element. So, question - given two assumptions: that clans of some form appear likely to be making an appearance, and group activity can be a rich source of alternative gameplay: how can/should clans interact with broader community events?

 

[Cosmo]

We do, do we? This is one of those few cases where DBOBE has made a statement which directly intersects with that vision; the idea of this eventually becoming an executive management game isn't going to happen. So player ownership of assets and governance, if it happens at all, will be extremely limited.

A lot of people want it so it should be added. Guild management is an executive feature, but it's such a basic MMO feature that there's no reason not to add it. If Fdev refuses to add it then people will move on to other space sims.

A major disparity between what players want (e.g. executive features, empire building) and what Fdev's lead developers want could severely limit the potential of ED and cost Fdev millions in revenue.

 

[Spook]

A lot of people want it so it should be added. Guild management is an executive feature, but it's such a basic MMO feature that there's no reason not to add it. If Fdev refuses to add it then people will move on to other space sims.

A major disparity between what players want (e.g. executive features, empire building) and what Fdev's lead developers want could severely limit the potential of ED and cost Fdev millions in revenue.

Equally a lot of people it would seem don't want the dev's to waste time on executive features that are meaningful to a sub-section of the player base....

A major disparity between ........ cost FDev millions in revenue. They've managed to sell just a few copies without this feature, so it would be just as valid to state that any move to a traditional MMO feature set could cost FDev millions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

A lot of people want it so it should be added. Guild management is an executive feature, but it's such a basic MMO feature that there's no reason not to add it. If Fdev refuses to add it then people will move on to other space sims.

A major disparity between what players want (e.g. executive features, empire building) and what Fdev's lead developers want could severely limit the potential of ED and cost Fdev millions in revenue.

Where are the reliable stats relating to the wants of a significant proportion of the players who have bought 1.2M copies of the game in total? What constitutes "a lot" in this context?

DBOBE does not seem to want the game to include Executive Control in this interview with The Escapist:

The Escapist: Are you interested in seeing Elite: Dangerous move more into the Eve Online space?

Braben: I don't feel like that. The way I see it, the important difference between Eve Online and us is that Eve is an executive control game and Elite: Dangerous isn't. That's a big differentiator. What I see us doing is moving more into the richness of the experience and expanding the depth of space gameplay. I think the more games we have in the science fiction genre the better, because it's a genre that has been languishing for a bit. If you think about the way people work together in squad-type games like Battlefield 4 or even in Warcraft raids, the fun of it is in playing together and actually planning a little bit ahead. I've seen it a little bit in slightly more arcadey games as well, like Battlestations Midway, where a group of four players go against another group of four players and the difference in tactics makes a big difference. It's not symmetric. Someone might go in with a big Anaconda and essentially draw the fire, but then there will be other players in more nimble ships.

 

[Talarin]

A lot of people want it so it should be added. Guild management is an executive feature, but it's such a basic MMO feature that there's no reason not to add it. If Fdev refuses to add it then people will move on to other space sims.

A major disparity between what players want (e.g. executive features, empire building) and what Fdev's lead developers want could severely limit the potential of ED and cost Fdev millions in revenue.

Got to say, I disagree with you - in terms of the desire/appeal to the wider player-base and the impact that not fulfilling that desire would have. Most of the people who would use such functionality probably already have the game - so there is no revenue to be lost (barring season expansions - but other major features will be the driver behind the purchase decision of those).

 

[Cosmo]

Most of the people who would use such functionality probably already have the game - so there is no revenue to be lost (barring season expansions - but other major features will be the driver behind the purchase decision of those).

Those are major features that will retain and add lots of players who want such things (guilds, chat rooms, executive management, empire building). It will add vast depth and emergent gameplay to Elite.

As with Horizons and future expansions = people are buying a dream that Fdev is selling, because it are promises of future content and features.

A lot of people see the full potential of Elite, stopped playing for a while due to a shallowness burnout, and others are waiting till there's more meat and depth.

Where are the reliable stats relating to the wants of a significant proportion of the players who have bought 1.2M copies of the game in total? What constitutes "a lot" in this context?

We only have various threads where there's strong support for this. Also Elite Dangerous / Shallowous got many low reviews on Steam by people who are disappointed with the shallow MMO part.

 

[Mohrgan]

Those are major features that will retain and add lots of players who want such things (guilds, chat rooms, executive management, empire building). It will add vast depth and emergent gameplay to Elite.

As with Horizons and future expansions = people are buying a dream that Fdev is selling them, because it are promises of future content and features.

A lot of people see the full potential of Elite, stopped playing for a while due to a shallowness burnout, and others are waiting out till there's more meat an depth.

Yet, you refuse to recognize that FD are adding their own vision of Cults already. There are hundreds of registered player groups in game pursuing their goals. It is obvious that FD are making plans, and so far those plans indicate a vastly different path than you expect. I am happy with the direction FD are taking, and implore people to get involved. This is where Clans/Fleets/Corps will develop in Elite. I can't see FD going down this path, only to switch tact. Cults = associating with a Minor Faction, and playing through the BSG.

 

[Varrag]

10 LET A=INFINITY
20 LET B=(0/0)
30 LET N$="NO!"
40 FOR X=1 TO A
50 PRINT N$
60 IF A/B>=0 THEN GOTO 80
70 NEXT X
80 RANDOMIZE USR 0

Is that ZX Spectrum BASIC? Looks like it.

 

[Cosmo]

Yet, you refuse to recognize that FD are adding their own vision of Cults already.

I recognize that, but also they've stated to be open to suggestions and the sky is the limit.

There are hundreds of registered player groups in game pursuing their goals.

Player groups are not player managed guilds.

It is obvious that FD are making plans, and so far those plans indicate a vastly different path than you expect.

Yes they are making plans for development. If Elite Dangerous continues to be shallow in the massively multiplayer aspects a lot of players will be migrating to this other game called Star Citizen in the near future.

Elite Dangerous sold lots of copies with Steam sales, but the true test is how many players does it retain in the long-term?

Eve Online still has 40.000 active players per day. I think the amount of active players per day in Elite Dangerous has declined a lot in a short time. This could be due to several reasons, such as shallow MMO aspects and lack of player tools for emergent content.