Possible Introduction of Guild/Fleet/Corp Systems into Elite: Dangerous

[Yaffle]

And I have replied that like credits, it's cannot become private property, and cannot be withdrawn. It can only be used for syndicate upkeep and syndicate-related activity.

Syndicate related activity such as transferring to players to complete missions that require it, after it has been stockpiled waiting for those missions. If it cannot be transferred to a player, there is no point in it, unless you are saying that every syndicate will consume all cargo on 'deposit' for 'upkeep'.

 

[smiths121]

OK that was interesting! Might be a better PP than PP (certainly would be more varied for those that do not like undermining).
We need some player produced content for those that have reached Elite in their chosen profession.

My observations:
1) Not sure we need a new set of mechanics - would it not be better to morph PP or player minor factions?
2) Guild folder on friends list auto-populated with Cmdrs name. Allows direct chat.
3) Can we not just use the "minor faction" space on PCs to give the guild name, I really hate seeing

 or [Ctrl] in Cmdrs names. Just me being picky I expect.
4) No gating of membership I found surprising.
4a)  Given the problems of 5th columnists in PP.
4b)  Having said that I could not see an obvious 5th columnist activity in the mechanisms. Without gating, I would expect most guilds two run external set of comms tools - internal to talk to "doers" external for "decison makers".  Better social tools will therefore still be a thread starter.
5) I am wondering how this would play out with the BGS.
5a) PP does not directly interact with the BGS, but offered the ability to tank controlling faction influence in control systems until 1.4. By using contracts as some sort of meta-mission (or encourage trading etc) system I think there will be an affect, actually a large affect on the BGS in systems targeted by one or more guilds.
2b) Given killing a player that is clean in system count as murder for  the controlling factions - I can see 2 guilds at war being able to mess up the influence of a number of systems during a war.
2c) Not saying a or b is a bad thing! Just noting that the lone wolf in open will need to be aware of guild activity in the area they operate in.

Given I am not a fan of guilds in ED , but I quite like what player minor factions have brought to the game (other than how they were originally injected into the game), I really liked the proposal, and would probably like to see the Contract mechanism stolen for PP somehow -would probably encourage me to pledge.

I am just not convinced we need a third separate mechanism to measure ownership of systems.

Simon

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's to maintain immersion, if people request to be knowledgeable of player's syndicates, make it a toggle feature, then. There is no intention of disadvantaging non-syndicate players.

Better.

Except that commodity being stocked cannot be withdrew as private property, no matter what circumstance.

Except that stored commodities would be useful for syndicate missions - which lead to syndicate earnings - which pay the syndicate members' daily allowances. Having stockpiled commodities would give syndicates an advantage, even if the missions were restricted to syndicates.

Rather, I made it clear that I wish to respect the current BGS system and keep it in place, but making syndicate influence a separate mechanic to avoid conflict. The two can mingle if complex development is to take place, but right now it's not necessary.

I've explicitly described the the size of a syndicate will determine the amount necessary to reach the daily influence limit, the larger the syndicate, the more difficult it is to reach the goal. Not to mention large syndicates have even more up-keeps to maintain, making them fight on many fronts.

I would counter with: Frontier have allowed player groups to register and create Minor Factions already - why duplicate effort when the outcome will still require to fit into Frontier's view of player groups in general?

Requiring a larger syndicate to do more to gain influence would seem to be un-necessarily gamey. Simpler to allow multiple entities to vie for influence in systems - just as Minor Factions do presently.

The perk system does allow large syndicates to focus on more perks than smaller ones, however, the perks mean nothing if the large syndicate cannot claim a system. Also that the upkeep for multiple perks in a system will be substantial compared to single/double perk focused syndicates (large or small). Additionally, it is up to the syndicate to decide how many perks to apply in a system, always applying the maximum amount of perks in every claimed system will throw large syndicates into bankruptcy in no time.

The emphasis on greater benefits for larger groups would seem to lead towards the "everyone must be in a syndicate - the bigger the better" scenario - which may lead to the ossification that has been mentioned when Guilds / Corps have been spoken about by DBOBE.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Syndicate related activity such as transferring to players to complete missions that require it, after it has been stockpiled waiting for those missions. If it cannot be transferred to a player, there is no point in it, unless you are saying that every syndicate will consume all cargo on 'deposit' for 'upkeep'.

Rather, the syndicate mission on trading require syndicate members to purchase their own commodity from regular markets. The stocking of commodity is used for syndicate-related activity such as system claiming, war upkeep, influence contribution, etc.

For example, if I am the strategist for CODE, and I want to claim Lave, depending on the size of CODE, it will demand a certain type of commodity to place the claim. Lore wise it's easy to compensate: "Lave is recently in need of X amount of gold, give us X amount of gold and we'll let you place a claim." This cannot be done through direct delivery of market commodity, but only through syndicate treasury (lore wise it's bribery/winning favors behind closed door).

If I am short on gold stock, I'll gather members to complete specific missions (which won't be enough most of the time if I'm picking up the slack right when the claim needs this commodity since missions can't be spammed and have cool down respectively [which I will note on the article later for clarity]), or more effectively make use of the treasury's credits and outsource missions to let players bring commodity to our treasury.

 

[Yaffle]

Rather, the syndicate mission on trading require syndicate members to purchase their own commodity from regular markets. The stocking of commodity is used for syndicate-related activity such as system claiming, war upkeep, influence contribution, etc.

For example, if I am the strategist for CODE, and I want to claim Lave, depending on the size of CODE, it will demand a certain type of commodity to place the claim. Lore wise it's easy to compensate: "Lave is recently in need of X amount of gold, give us X amount of gold and we'll let you place a claim." This cannot be done through direct delivery of market commodity, but only through syndicate treasury (lore wise it's bribery/winning favors behind closed door).

Which is the syndicate only activity precluding solo players from it. It's a syndicate only content mission, which is what you said would not exist.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Except that stored commodities would be useful for syndicate missions - which lead to syndicate earnings - which pay the syndicate members' daily allowances. Having stockpiled commodities would give syndicates an advantage, even if the missions were restricted to syndicates.

Commodities are not useful for syndicate missions, whatsoever, they can be the product of certain kind of missions. Their use lies in system claiming, warring, and up-keep.

I would counter with: Frontier have allowed player groups to register and create Minor Factions already - why duplicate effort when the outcome will still require to fit into Frontier's view of player groups in general?

I personally think that this isn't a duplication, but fleshing out the skeletal faction system and the BGS to give more immediacy and richness to the galaxy. Right now, expanding a minor faction into multiple systems is just for show. Sure, if it gets big enough (don't know when), it will enter Power Play (we all know how fun Power Play is), thus I use the word "influence" instead of "control."

Basically, minor faction system is too mild to provide much dynamic for the game, and Power Play is currently too rigid and full of exploitation (especially the lack of player control over Powers). Thus, we give power to the players in a non-disruptive manner and we can truly increment the excitement and dynamic of the sandbox.

Requiring a larger syndicate to do more to gain influence would seem to be un-necessarily gamey. Simpler to allow multiple entities to vie for influence in systems - just as Minor Factions do presently.

If we don't scale each syndicate size differently, we'll end up with one or two large syndicates taking over many systems and discourage smaller amounts of player to aggregate without being absorbed. It's lore-friendly in the sense that larger syndicates takes more resources to run, which I believe is in line with realism.

As for allowing multiple syndicates to fight over a system, my proposal does allow multiple syndicates to race for influence, however, when two or more of them reach the goal, they'll become incumbent and challenger based on the time of their initial claim, allowing only two syndicates to actually contest the system (This is to make things easier for FD, and also allow players to not focus solely on a few system). The proposal also sets up the mechanic to restrict repeated claiming of a system if the syndicate loses or tie with its opponent in the contest stage.

The emphasis on greater benefits for larger groups would seem to lead towards the "everyone must be in a syndicate - the bigger the better" scenario - which may lead to the ossification that has been mentioned when Guilds / Corps have been spoken about by DBOBE.

Actually, I think it's quite the contrary. I've stated that the sizes of syndicates is precisely to let player to strategically control the amount of players they have as members to appropriately compete with other syndicates regardless of their sizes. Not to mention that large syndicates will have to stop growing at one point since they will go bankrupt if they keep handing out contracts.

Also, if people in large syndicates don't work "extra hard" they will either leave on their own due to low pay or get removed for not contributing enough. I believe human condition balances itself in that sense. For single players that don't want to get caught up in all of this can still enjoy perks and lucrative outsource missions.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Which is the syndicate only activity precluding solo players from it. It's a syndicate only content mission, which is what you said would not exist.

I said that the syndicate missions are not "special." Since they are essentially the existing mechanics in the game. In order for syndicate function to be unfair to single players, there needs to be an advantage, but I really think I kept that to a minimum, if not, non-existent or perhaps into the negative.

The only "exclusive" feature would be system claim, and the contract payment. However, the only reason to claim a system is to put perks into effect, which single players can already enjoy from syndicate players. Contract payment will not be more lucrative than regular revenue unless we're talking about the CEO of a syndicate, and if anything, it makes people do certain activities, which single players do not suffer from, nor do they lose much revenue.

I firmly believe that ED isn't a race toward whoever has the most credits, and if becoming an aspiring CEO of a syndicate is what one wants, let them. It'll probably be roughly equivalent to Robigo smuggling.

Edit:

Got class in the morning and my eyes won't stay open, I'll think further about punishment system to wrong doers in line of the upcoming crime and punishment system and somehow avoid 5C possibilities as much as possible.

Just throwing a thought out there, what if I distinguish between two fundamentally different types of syndicate: Legal Syndicate and Outlaw Syndicate?

These labels are not selected voluntarily but determined based on syndicate members' actions?

All syndicates start out legal.

If there are illegal activities going around (Smuggling and got scanned, shooting clean NPC/Cmdrs, etc) there will be a 48 hours review period for the administrators of the syndicate to either remove the member or keep him. If removed under criminality review period, the Cmdr won't be able to be hired again by the same syndicate for a month (or two months?). The removed Cmdr will have to pay for a criminality fine (make it costly).

If the syndicate has more than 10% of its members flagged as criminals at once, the syndicate becomes an outlaw syndicate.

To compensate for feeding station wall sidewinders, this record doesn't go away and will reset all current and future syndicate activity points unless the syndicate is/becomes an outlaw syndicate. For example: 666 (+333) becomes 333 (+0).

The only way to make an outlaw syndicate legal again is through a special mission that takes time and costs the syndicate greatly in its treasury?

I'll think about the pros and cons for outlaw syndicates/legal syndicate once my brain cells regenerate.

Let me know if the direction I'm taking seem sound or not.

 

[Thetele]

I really hope that frontier look at your threads and suggestions. What you suggest here would ad a lot to game. I am solo player that play in open. I have been in wing maybe 4 times. But what I want something like you suggest to be in game. I want to hear and read about conflicts between players, go around and help bigger hands (like accept missions like you suggest) and make make money.

I don't care if this system bring any benefits to players in syndicate. I don't care if someone earn more than me. Because cr doesn't bring them any more benefits or advance. And you can get ridiculous amount of cr by using broken game mechanics and exploits if you want. Your A rated conda won't become better than mine even if you grind as much you want. I haven't used Robigo or smugling mission stacking. Hate me for not playing optimal way. I have my Anaconda and soon my cutter.

Its stupid to say that guilds/clans system wouldn't add huge amount of contend to game. Currently players can't create contend, with suggested syndicate system we would see huge amount of contend (wars, mini cg, when syndicate ask to deliver something etc) without FDevs input and reasons for player to log in and play the game.

Current static system where everyone hide in their corner and repeat their favorite grinding activity is just boring.

P.S OP you forgot the read a book part.

 

[Sentenza]

Short answer: NO.

Long answer: could anyone please explain to me why there are so many people obsessed with guilds/clans/whatever? There are tons of games out there that feaure guilds. This game doesn't precisely because is intended to be different - Elite is for people who DO NOT want to be sheeps in a herd. It's a different experience and we want it to remain different. Thanks

 

[GluttonyFang]

Short answer: NO.

Long answer: could anyone please explain to me why there are so many people obsessed with guilds/clans/whatever? There are tons of games out there that feaure guilds. This game doesn't precisely because is intended to be different - Elite is for people who DO NOT want to be sheeps in a herd. It's a different experience and we want it to remain different. Thanks

I'd prefer that you actually read the proposal before jumping to conclusion.

If you have actually read it, then tell me what part you find inappropriate, and provide reason why.

As for your question, ED is marketed as a MMO, and has obvious support for multiplayer, so collaboration in an organized manner isn't exactly out of bound.

So again, please tell me precisely what part of the proposal you disagree with. Otherwise I can't take your feedback seriously.

 

[Sentenza]

I'd prefer that you actually read the proposal before jumping to conclusion.

If you have actually read it, then tell me what part you find inappropriate, and provide reason why.

As for your question, ED is marketed as a MMO, and has obvious support for multiplayer, so collaboration in an organized manner isn't exactly out of bound.

So again, please tell me precisely what part of the proposal you disagree with. Otherwise I can't take your feedback seriously.

It effectively grants reign on the game to syndicates only. Section VII, Syndicate Influence: syndicates can claim systems and fight other syndicates for control. As it is stated, syndicates only. Only syndicates can fight for control - if an "undesirable" syndicate claims a system, free, independent players can't do anything. I can't help wondering if this is actually just a subtle way to make another Wolfberg Liberation Campaign impossible

Conclusion: NO.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Given that Minor Factions already compete for control over systems, how would a syndicate gain any form of control over a system that a Minor Faction already controlled?

 

[Zeeman]

Short answer: NO.

Long answer: could anyone please explain to me why there are so many people obsessed with guilds/clans/whatever? There are tons of games out there that feaure guilds. This game doesn't precisely because is intended to be different - Elite is for people who DO NOT want to be sheeps in a herd. It's a different experience and we want it to remain different. Thanks

Because, what this game REALLY needs, is a way for people to play together in more ways than just blowing each other up.

The proposal is interesting, I've head a read through it, and my first thought, really, is this is what I would have imagined "Power play" to be before it was actually released.

I'd also like to see the ability to be on good, neutral and bad terms with other syndicates (one of the things that bugs me about PP is that being in one power seems to make you a target for all others, regardless of whether those powers are "allies" overall or not).

Your idea seems for more involving and interesting than current PP or player faction gameplay.

I'd probably want to think about it a bit befor eI started hailing it as the next big thing, or ripping it to shreds, but It hinkt here are some very good ideas.

I did note you mentioning the BGS, and the one thing I would be interested in seeing as the BGS, player factions and PP being properly interlinked. As it stands they really appear to be almost totally unrelated. IF anything, the BGS, player factions and PP becoming more closely related, with a concept like yours isn't such a bad idea at all... I'd argue, with a bit of work, it would actually be quite beneficial tot he game. The trick is to make sure no one is disadvantaged, whether they choos eto be part of a syndicate or not...

Also, some way to discourage syndicates from killing all non-syndicate players on site just simply because they are not part of the syndicate in question.

Z...

 

[Mephane]

Wait, didn't I see this very very thread before? Is this the same proposal as last time, Gluttony?

 

[Axel Deathrage]

I like it, it seems much more complicated than my idea though, which was more about adding in game minor faction chat that eases communication without having to resort into third party tools. That alone would help a lot I think.

Here's a link to it if you missed it: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=242643&p=3763349&viewfull=1#post3763349

 

[Marcus Tullius]

@Gluttony, The war against the human prejudices is lost in advance. Btw, as much as I hate to belong to any kind of in game organization (because in RL I belong to one of the most restrictive organizations), so much I will be glad to see some of your proposals implemented. There is no synthetic BGS (driven by algorithm) or semi-synthetic (ruled by the Gods… ouch, I mean by the FDevs) which could be as alive as the player driven one would be.

 

[EddiesMinion]

That was an interesting read. Well written and thought-out.

I think, though, that with your (admirable) effort to maintain equality between indie and affiliated pilots, the system gets overly complex. Perks, syndicate bank, wars with differing upkeep...it would place a barrier to entry to "casual" groups (like my own) and, IMHO, would see little uptake and/or a high failure rate of startup syndicates. Much the same as people who try PP, pick the 'wrong' system and harm their pledged faction through fortifying a loss-making system due to overheads and upkeep. Especially considering PP is less complicated than the system you propose here.

I would simplify it thusly:

Tie a guild/clan/syndicate/<cool name here> to a minor faction.
Keep the recruitment style - an in-game system with officers with differing levels of admin rights. Similar to how PlanetSide 2 handles officers in its outfits.
Group chat.
Should your minor faction be the controlling faction in the system, you "control" it. No in-game effect.
Becoming a controlling faction opens up the option for the 'Allies' tab. This allows you(r officers) to propose an alliance with another group (see next point for why).
When another group's members enter 'your' system, they will have the status of "Allied" or "Enemy". Much like PP, you can shoot enemies with no penalty.
Independent pilots show as clean or wanted, as per the usual mechanics. Assaulting or killing clean commanders will result in a bounty as normal, whether or not you're in a group.

I think this is enough. Groups can grow, assault/defend systems from other groups without interfering with unaffiliated pilots. Your independent guy will just see what he sees now - groups of ships flying around together. There is no in-game benefit to being in a group, just as there's no in-game detriment to being independent.

I get that you're trying to add to the game, to give it depth...and you're right to do so. Maybe some of your ideas could be added to a simpler base principle, but it needs to remain accessible and easy to engage with.

Maybe I'm completely off the mark with this, or not...but 2 cents ain't a lot to work with

Edit: Borrowed heavily from Akselmo's post (unwittingly...sorry!)

 

[sic]

This is similar to powerplay, no?
Why not just group up and do all those social organization guilidie whatever to support one of the powers?
PP has missions, ranks, salaries, systems, perks etc.. right?

and you can spend even more efforts to, you know, make it nice..
maybe create a website of your group, forums, reddit sub, raidchat/ts chan,..
even more you can play spreadsheet to track your members and their contributions, attendance, items, upgrades, credits, etc..

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Introduction:
First off your timing is very poor for putting this forward – so far this week we’ve had a CMDR from the Goon’s in EVE try twice to convince us that we need his fleet to save us from some pirate called Smelly Bob. Lets just say it didn’t go to well and even worse when it was discovered which group he was from within EVE so forgive us if we don’t react well to the mention of guilds/fleets.
As you know more than many the well run guilds are already in Elite and use the tools they prefer to communicate both in and out of the game. As such I’m no fan of in game pampering to guilds but I do know and appreciate what they can bring to a game but I also have seen the ugly side…

Dilemma
When players get the ability to join a minor faction or their choosing this dilemma can be dealt with but of course it will not feed the desire to have a clan tag shown so we still have that to overcome…

Inspiration
Not played BDO as it has no appeal to me so no comment other than there are many well established and proven guild systems that may be better suited to our style of game. Many have suggested EVE features only to be shouted at, this is Elite after all and it should stand head and shoulders above a point and click spread-sheet simulator. (My personal opinion of EVE).

Syndicate system
Change the name from SS please.

Naming and ID
Standard desire to have a 4 letters either before or after their name. However I’m not liking the first come first served solution for uniqueness and nor would you if a group got the name CODE before your mob. Sooner or later you’ll get some ancient guild who been around since before the dawn of man claiming they have always been known as ‘Pirates Raised In Combat’. Toggle – has to be there of course as I and many others will not care one dot if you are in a group at all.

Contract system.
I presume you mean <25 etc. when talking numbers – exclusion leads to contempt.
And then we get to the first huge no-no – Payments. Not in a month of Sundays!
· How is this money generated? Just created out of thin air? Just because you joined a group? Ridiculous to think you can get 1Million credits just by logging in!?!
· This was of course well hidden beneath lots of math, best way to thrown in something like free money to member’s…
· They get this on top of bounties and other credits earned?
· If so then forget Robigo every one may as well just join a guild and get rich even quicker!
Have you gathered that I don’t like this idea one bit, I do not see it being justified – give it a mechanic where by the spoils are divided up among members – percentages to different ranks etc. Show that this should be a well earned reward and not just free cash for playing the game while wearing your colours.
EDIT: If only you had placed a caveat or notice about how the syndicate gains funds, you would of saved me all that typing… When laying out a suggestion it’s a good idea to cover your bases. I could of just walked away at this point but as it’s written by you I carried on out of respect.

Syndicate chat.
As a lone wolf in open I don’t see the need for it. A few nights ago I was contacted in the game by a CMDR who was nowhere near me, he was on the other side of the bubble. At this point I just wanted to be able to turn the chat window off, if you think it has to be there then please provide me with unique features to justify it’s inclusion, other wise… Get a mic and run teamspeak.
I could also say. Chat-server’s and bandwidth cost money – are you and the other guilds prepared to pay for this service?

Treasury
If any can hold commodities then everyone can – not just a guild or a guild member… Every CMDR.

Syndicate influence
This is layering another layer on top of other layers that are already clouded to a lot of players! In short I would like to see what Frontier have planned for groups transitioning into factions before we discuss having another layer of politics on top.
I do however think that placing restrictions on these player groups can be dangerous but this all goes back to what you consider a group. I mentioned the <25 players for a tiny group, why should this group be limited in their scope? Why should a larger group get anything other than what they can earn/achieve. A small group of 6 players have the right to play how they want, not be limited because they chose to only have friends in the group.
Next up is perk for guild members? Why?
What merits these players getting anything more for the same actions as a lone wolf – very unappealing suggestion that should never be considered.

War
Yes war should cost money and resources, lots of both.

Conclusion
You need to ensure that a guild member gets only what a normal player would get – being part of a guild in no way entitles anyone to get more or we may as well just rename this Elite:Guilds R Best.
My personal feeling is you’ve made some good points but this is written from a man who has clearly been through many games while in a guild. And as such you may have lost touch with the huge number of players that are not and do not want to be in a guild/group/clan/fleet/club, as soon as you start to give the groups extra features/rewards people start to get angry and others just leave, driving funds away from the game.
Now the one thing I have yet to read in all of the text you wrote is why this should be considered? I don’t buy the social aspect – we both know that guilds have existed fine in games without the need for these features, my own time in various games has shown me that most features tend not to get used anywhere near as much as the cries for them suggest – all work and no reward is not exactly what a ‘for profits’ organisation does.

 

[Axel Deathrage]

maybe create a website of your group, forums, reddit sub, raidchat/ts chan,..

I mean, this is one of the problems for me, too much stuff relies on third party software.

Even ingame chat for player groups/minor factions/syndicates/etc etc would be much better. Basic social tools is what most people are asking, and some of them are already in game. A "group chat" would add to it and give players a sense of belonging, which is fun for social players like me.