Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Mohrgan]

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




Player groups are not player managed guilds.




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, and one of them is the shallowness of the MMO parts.

I don't believe the 'sky is the limit'. FD have mentioned that they won;t be turning Elite in to a executive decision type of game.

Player Groups are not player controlled guilds. Nor do FD intend they should be. But, they are what is being delivered. Decision made it would appear.

Your last paragraph has nothing to support it. It is just some vague idea you present to add some scare factor. This game has been very successful, there is no data suggesting anything different.

 

[Cosmo]

I don't believe the 'sky is the limit'. FD have mentioned that they won;t be turning Elite in to a executive decision type of game.

The developers said during a twitch Q&A that "executive" features and player owned stations could be added later.

Player Groups are not player controlled guilds. Nor do FD intend they should be. But, they are what is being delivered. Decision made it would appear.

This thread is about whether Fdev should add player factions / clans. Clans are guilds. Player groups where Fdev controls the creation and management don't do the job.

Your last paragraph has nothing to support it. It is just some vague idea you present to add some scare factor. This game has been very successful, there is no data suggesting anything different.

It does, because there are countless posts on the Elite Dangerous subreddit, the forums and Steam where people complain about the shallow MMO aspects.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

.... support from a portion of the participants in the threads, who may or may not be players, who represent a tiny proportion of the player-base as a whole. How many reviews in relation to copies sold on the platform?

 

[Cosmo]

.... support from a portion of the participants in the threads, who may or may not be players, who represent a tiny proportion of the player-base as a whole. How many reviews in relation to copies sold on the platform?

The same could be said for the opponents of clans, guilds, executive features.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The same could be said for the opponents.

The onus on the proponents of change is to show significant support from the player-base as a whole for clearly defined changes - those who seek to retain the status quo have no such requirement.

.... and there is no single clear, concise and unambiguous change proposals to consider.

 

[Cosmo]

The onus on the proponents of change is to show significant support from the player-base as a whole for clearly defined changes - those who seek to retain the status quo have no such requirement.

In my opinion there's more than enough support for it as I said before. Threads, polls, Subreddit posts, many bad reviews on Steam. I'd like to see statistics about how many players are still playing Elite Dangerous after the steam sales.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It does, because there are countless posts on the Elite Dangerous subreddit, the forums and Steam where people complain about the shallow MMO aspects.

And there are just as many posts where people disagree with the complains or just talk about how they like game. And just to remember, it has about double as many positiv reviews as it has negativ ones on steam.

Not that it matters, it doesn't. Its just the internet where most people playing the game hardly every say anything about it.

 

[Cosmo]

And there are just as many posts where people disagree with the complains or just talk about how they like game. And just to remember, it has about double as many positiv reviews as it has negativ ones on steam.

Enough reasons and indictions to take the matter seriously and add clans, guilds.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Enough reasons and indictions to take the matter seriously and add clans, guilds.

And enough reasons to stick with it and don't add clans. Again, there are about as many posts out there liking how it is as there are post out there not liking it. Why is the amount of people expressing an opinion for the one side of importance and for the other not?

 

[Cosmo]

And enough reasons to stick with it and don't add clans.

I don't think so, because clans can be implemented as a voluntary gameplay style that wouldn't bother players who don't like it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't think so, because clans can be implemented as a voluntary gameplay style that wouldn't bother players who don't like it.

If Clans/Guilds are guaranteed not to bother other players who don't like the prospect of their introduction, what will the Clans/Guilds be doing?

 

[Cosmo]

If Clans/Guilds are guaranteed not to bother other players who don't like the prospect of their introduction, what will the Clans/Guilds be doing?

The same things as any clan/guild. They could operate between clans/guilds, the NPC powers and only players who enabled that they want to be involved.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

I don't think so, because clans can be implemented as a voluntary gameplay style that wouldn't bother players who don't like it.

Could, yes, to some degree that has no effect on me I'm not even against it and for it. Based on expierence the wishes and "needs" never stay there tough so I of course will remain very scepitcal in that matter.

 

[Talarin]

...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....

Nah, sorry but I just don't buy that. People won't shift games simply because one game has better multiplayer features than the other unless all other aspects are equal - which they clearly won't be. When it comes, Star Citizen may be a truly extraordinary game with masses of content for players to loose themselves in and FD would be right to be concerned (and up their game accordingly). But multiplayer alone..?

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think FD should invest in the features around player groups and the conversation in this thread has moved my opinion on player-assets from "no" to "there are ways this could work well" - but it's truly hyperbolic to suggest that this topic (executive management features as part of guilds/clans) as a whole could lead to a mass exodus of players.

It does, because there are countless posts on the Elite Dangerous subreddit, the forums and Steam where people complain about the shallow MMO aspects.

MMO features =/= executive management. There are other (and in my opinion, better) ways to enhance the MMO aspects of Elite.

The onus on the proponents of change is to show significant support from the player-base as a whole for clearly defined changes - those who seek to retain the status quo have no such requirement.

.... and there is no single clear, concise and unambiguous change proposals to consider.

No - I disagree here too. (I'm doing a lot of that today ) Appeals to consensus are a terrible justification as to whether an idea is good or bad. Let each suggestion and discussion stand on it's own two feet and be seen by FD in the light of their own plans. No proponent for or against any idea should have to demonstrate "significant support", otherwise you'll just end up with ideas being carried forward which are cookie-cutter / satisfy the masses. We should aim for more than the average...

 

[Mohrgan]

I don't think so, because clans can be implemented as a voluntary gameplay style that wouldn't bother players who don't like it.

Only if they are implemented in a way that doesn't impact other players. I point to the executive control you ask for. Cult support has wide acceptance. What isn't obvious is exactly what features, from the list of suggestions, are desirable across the board. So far there is a wide consensus for the Social Toolbox, but there is mixed reaction to the full suite, as you see trotted out in every other MMO out there.

 

[Cosmo]

Nah, sorry but I just don't buy that. People won't shift games simply because one game has better multiplayer features than the other unless all other aspects are equal - which they clearly won't be. When it comes, Star Citizen may be a truly extraordinary game with masses of content for players to loose themselves in and FD would be right to be concerned (and up their game accordingly). But multiplayer alone..?

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think FD should invest in the features around player groups and the conversation in this thread has moved my opinion on player-assets from "no" to "there are ways this could work well" - but it's truly hyperbolic to suggest that this topic (executive management features as part of guilds/clans) as a whole could lead to a mass exodus of players.

Right, agreed with the "there are ways this could work well" . I think, if there are no near-future announcements for any of such features, that a a gradual exodus will happen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The same things as any clan/guild. They could operate between clans/guilds, the NPC powers and only players who enabled that they want to be involved.

Presumably this would require another game mode, in addition to Open, for Clans/Guilds to operate in - to guarantee that they do not interfere with other players who play in Open already?

 

[Cosmo]

Presumably this would require another game mode, in addition to Open, for Clans/Guilds to operate in - to guarantee that they do not interfere with other players who play in Open already?

It can work in open: players would enable if they want to be involved with clans / guilds, and give them their own space. Most star systems will never be visited by players.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It can work in open: players would enable if they want to be involved with clans / guilds, and give them their own space. Most star systems will never be visited by players.

Yeah, thats why I'm agains Guilds, it always ends there.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No - I disagree here too. (I'm doing a lot of that today ) Appeals to consensus are a terrible justification as to whether an idea is good or bad. Let each suggestion and discussion stand on it's own two feet and be seen by FD in the light of their own plans. No proponent for or against any idea should have to demonstrate "significant support", otherwise you'll just end up with ideas being carried forward which are cookie-cutter / satisfy the masses. We should aim for more than the average...

Whether the idea is good or bad is not really the topic here - it is whether Frontier should implement Clans/Guilds in this game - not whether Clans/Guilds are a good idea.

If proponents of change cannot demonstrate significant support, what is the business case for the expenditure associated with such changes going to be based on?

I fully expect QoL (comms, membership, identification) features for player groups sponsoring Minor Factions to be introduced into the game at some point - such features make simple sense in a multi-player game. Whether Frontier go much further than that (or even that far) remains to be seen.