Or wanted. Don't turn into X games.
Asteroid bases
- Thread starter Erimus Kamzel
- Start date
Or wanted. Don't turn into X games.
tluamiani: Will guilds/clans be supported and how?
Everyone is enrolled as a member of the Pilot’s Federation, and within that there will be ‘groups’ functionality that allows people to form organic associations. There are also the three major power blocs of Federation, Empire and Alliance of Independents that you can cosy up to (or act against) as you wish. Specifically created clans are something we will investigate after the first release of the game.
not too clear but probably there will be some official game associations, anyway i don't see why group of people couldn't befriend each other and become a "guild" or whatever and coordinate all their actions outside the game, the problem is if you don't want to see anyone you will see no one, space is just that big in ED
The core ethos of the game is "One pilot, one ship versus the galaxy", not "Space Tycoon".
But "roller-coaster space tycoon" is planned.
It can happen, doesn't mean it's going to be achievable in every case though. Traditional guild mechanics may well not work too well given the nature of the network/instancing ED is built on.
It could be your acquaintances/player interactions are limited more by the nature of the internet, than in a more traditional client - central server role. Thats where the beauty of the current grouping mechanism comes in, you form groups with the people you actually meet in the game, and have proven effective shared P2P connections with. That way FD have dodged a bullet, by not supporting guilds they don't have to expend resources trying to get them to work.
I'd like to see the asteroid stations as the first step on the road to system colonisation. Then we as players can speed up or slow down the development of a system by either hindering or helping with the flow of trade into the system. Whether they're PC or NPC seeded wouldn't matter too much as eventually the amount of traffic would trigger a change in state. Upgrading the system to potentially a Corolis Level Station or whatever the first permanent level station is.
If a PC seeded/controlled? system eventually the stability or lack of would trigger a change in the state of the system - either giving the current occupiers a better system or due to an increase in security and technology state, or potentially forcing the previous overlords to make a choice. Work to trip the system back into low tech anarchy or move on to a new system as the in game NPC law enforcement response is hampering their ability to retain control.
The in game Empires may well decide a system is militarily important so the players trying to claim defacto feudal ownership could well find themselves in a six way fight. Against the Imperials/the Fed's/The Alliance or a combination of any of them, against the Local System Law Enforcement, against players supporting any of the above or even rival player groups. (That would be a fur ball and a half to try and control/anticipate the outcome.)
The frequency of NPC seeded asteroid stations, would decrease the further you get from the settled systems, and any further than a few hundred light years out, peter out all together. That would limit the ability of individual explorers and preserve deep space exploration for more organised co-op play.
Overall though the galaxy expands, and more asteroid stations are seeded - hopefully by players, if not then by NPCs
Last edited:
I hear 'Star Citizen' has an asteroid hanger, you might wanna check out that space game and see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Citizen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Citizen
I hope not. I want npc powers to rule the known universe.
In Elite we humans are relatively small players. We are not universe conquering heroes, thank god. That is a direction ED should never go. It would destroy the unique Elite atmosphere.
You wouldn't exactly be able to solo the universe.
All I'm saying is if a large group of players want to they can band together to take on the universe together. Since multicrew ships are happening I don't see why this can't.
there is nothing to stop you doing it.
you might don't get much help from the game in this regards (or even goals to work on with a lot of people) but you still can do it.
Well the mechanics of the game are such that it won't ever work like eve in most regards. Your huge group of players will never be able to blockade a system, because someone can just put you guys on the ingor list and coast right past.
Wait what?
If you add someone to your ignore list then you can never encounter them?
That's just...lazy and unbalanced.
not entirely true.
people on your ignore list will be the LAST to be added to your instance (if there is a choice to be made).
but switching to Singleplayer to cross a "blockade" is the easier option anyway
and why "unbalanced"?
if this game was centered around guilds, guildwars and possession of territory, then you were right.
what we try to tell you is: this is no intended part of the game and so we are given the tools to make sure that noone can block us from any game content.
There's a reason why we don't get the most powerful naval ships. If the "game" see's you as a problem and hindering whatever it's set goals are - consolidation or galactic expansion I could see it sending in the Navy. Interesting and emergent gameplay right there. I doubt even every player working together could take on one of the established factions. If we could that would be poor game design and I've not seen any evidence of that from FD so far.
This isn't EvE, we're a backdrop, not the centrepiece.
Not exactly...if they are the majority group in system matchmaking will see if their ping with you is good enough...
not entirely true.
people on your ignore list will be the LAST to be added to your instance (if there is a choice to be made).
but switching to Singleplayer to cross a "blockade" is the easier option anyway
and why "unbalanced"?
if this game was centered around guilds, guildwars and possession of territory, then you were right.
what we try to tell you is: this is no intended part of the game and so we are given the tools to make sure that noone can block us from any game content.
It lets you avoid conflict.
THat just seems wrong to me in a multiplayer game
Also the max players per instance might mean that your big group, would never see anybody but themselves, as other players go into different instances.
Then there is private groups/single player.
Then there is private groups/single player.
i see your point and, believe me, it has been discussed to death, reincarnation and death again.
conflicts between players is not the central part of the game...PvP is not excluded but definetely not encouraged.
just like....building tanks to attack other territory is no core concept in "Sim City Online".
it just is not a PvP heavy game like EVE. it just is not planned this way.