Sure, 61% two and half years ago.
Guilds in Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter JohnStabler
- Start date
- Status
Sure, 61% two and half years ago.
I'm not saying I want guilds, I have nothing to say about this (I already gave an idea for a guild/faction for explorers, read it if you want), but there's something I have to ask:
Why do you care if a guild tag appear at the end of a players name? I don't see the problem, most times you don't even read the players name if you're in a combat, and even if you are, why would it matter wether the CMDR has a "Code" tag or anything?
I can't understand why a name tag can mean so much, really.
Because I am bored with guild based games - they all boil down to the same old same old and I'm kind of tired of it. I appreciate not everyone is bored of them already which is why I'm okay with guilds IF they can effectively be ignored. Not only that but guilds don't fit in with the Elite galaxy's history and lore. We already have factions and parties that we can choose to align with or not, I don't see player guild "OMG TheZerg" really fitting in with it. And yes, the stupid name highlights another (perhaps petty) issue I have with guilds and that's their silly names. I already have to endure terrible commander names, I'd rather not double that up!
There is also a superiority complex with some guilds/clans where you get individuals who think they're something special just because of a guild tag - something else I find less than pleasurable while playing. Finally, I feel that not every game has to have the same old constructs just because it's MMO-like - it is possible to have new things and try a different approach - something I thought ED was going to do. With them giving us boring old tripe like CQC (Deathmatch, CTF - wow, how original) I suspect they're going down the same old same old mechanism route so guilds may well be on their list of things to do. If it is, I'd rather help steer things in a direction where we can all co-exist, hence my desire to make even seeing the existence of guilds as optional.
Last edited:
I am so pro guilds. Can you imagine a chat tab filled with people to talk to when you're on your boring trade route? Having a clan, guild, group chatroom would greatly improve this game. One night you may be trading and your clan invites you to an all out battle, some farming event or even just plain fooling around. Some of my favorite MMO moments started like this. Been a while since I had that much fun in an online game.
Even if the guild is just a chatroom filled with people accepted by the group and self moderated. (actually, that would be the best way to go about it)
Even if the guild is just a chatroom filled with people accepted by the group and self moderated. (actually, that would be the best way to go about it)
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's not what was said - it's a bit of hyperbole.
There seems to be an assumption (on one side of the debate) that the introduction of Guild features would have little or no effect on the players who are quite contentedly playing in Open at the moment. I don't share that view. Not all of the players in Open at the moment would want to join a Guild nor be affected by Guild players.
What is the "Guild content" you referred to when you said "Give them a good motive with guild contents and they'll not waste their preciuos time on mocking "irrelevant" commanders." if not content specifically designed and implemented for Guilds (i.e. large groups of players)?
Who would be expected to provide the content for Guilds - is it Frontier or the Guilds themselves?
Again, you are conflating a disinterest in Guilds and a dislike for the types of behaviour that would (probably inevitably) occur after implementation (by which time it is too late - the genie is out of the bottle) with fear. It's a video game - I doubt that anyone is scared of anything in it.
As to the Xbox "content" we don't have access to, I don't see what you mean - all players share and affect exactly the same universe, regardless of game mode or platform - of course we won't meet players on Xbox while playing on PC/Mac - unless the players themselves are the content you are referring to.... (and that disregards players who play on both platforms)
If a name tag means so little why do people keep asking for them?
If FD is lazy or completely against implementing guilds in ED, it will not work either way. If players want to form guilds so badly, they can form them outside of the game. I'm all for guild/outfit/player support. But regardless of what FD does, they can do nothing about it to stop people one way or another unless they ban players from open. Resistance really is futile in this case. All it takes is for one really motivated and creative individual to get people to work together and that would be more imbalanced than actually implementing a functional guild system. It would, at that point, be a very one-sided form of metagaming which puts a lot of individual players vs. a group of very organized players in open.
A perfect example would be like groups such as AoD, the Enclave, Goonswarm, etc. All these gaming communities have all the guild infrastructure in place with (or without) ingame guild tools. If they really wanted to do something, it wouldn't take much effort on their part to get their people on open and to be organized. The same thing can be replicated in ED. The only thing is, most of these groups would have nothing else better to do than to probably harass players because there is no content available for groups like these. And there is also no current need for it.
Either way, it's all hypothetical. But it is, in my opinion, very feasible with how things are currently. All it really takes is for someone to motivate people and something to motivate them with. The most obvious thing which comes to me would be to do some rough PvP to shutdown systems using PP as a ploy.
A perfect example would be like groups such as AoD, the Enclave, Goonswarm, etc. All these gaming communities have all the guild infrastructure in place with (or without) ingame guild tools. If they really wanted to do something, it wouldn't take much effort on their part to get their people on open and to be organized. The same thing can be replicated in ED. The only thing is, most of these groups would have nothing else better to do than to probably harass players because there is no content available for groups like these. And there is also no current need for it.
Either way, it's all hypothetical. But it is, in my opinion, very feasible with how things are currently. All it really takes is for someone to motivate people and something to motivate them with. The most obvious thing which comes to me would be to do some rough PvP to shutdown systems using PP as a ploy.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
jesus christ!. 1stly i have not read this whole thread so am sure this has been covered but from what i have seen... it looks to me like if a certain section got their way, not only would solo be gone and i would be forced into open, now some would expect me to blog, tw@atter and friend face about it too in some social guild where all the cool kids hang out and where i could be kicked out if I am not worthy, possibly losing out on game content if i am not one of the chosen ones? No thanks!. Guilds are the number 1 reason why I truly dislike Eve. Its not the game, its the people in it. (not all of course - but it only takes 1 maggot in my bowl of rice to put me off my entire meal!)
When facebook bought out oculus people jokingly said I would have to sign into facebook before I could use my rift. I laughed politely but the way it looks here seems some want elite to go like that too!?
No thanks!. For me elite is about the desolation of space, quiet alone time where the odd time of meeting a fellow CMDR is a noteworthy thing.
edit... Asp, this is not aimed at you btw, i think i quoted wrong post
Last edited:
Guilds formed and managed external to the game are clearly inferior to guilds formed internally, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. By not allowing internal guilds you reduce the maximum effectiveness of guilds. So they are not disallowed, but they are not supported. They are only allowed within very narrow boundaries. Once they add even the smallest official support for guilds they are supporting the concept of guilds. (See "They put guilds in GalNet we should have guilds" argument.)
The concept of guilds is not clear or agreed upon, even among pro-guild players, even on this thread. Adding guild support opens up more debate of "it should be this, it should be that" like the Open/Solo/Group debate - there are many different interpretations of "multiplayer" or "MMO" just as there are many different interpretations of "guild". Drawing a clear line in the sand - "we don't support guilds" - is better, imo, than saying "we allow some definitions of guild, but not others".
Last edited:
Maybe it reduces the effectiveness of most guilds, but I really doubt it would in the case of something like Goonswarm or the Enclave. Buzzcut controls people and he controls them very well. Mittani is the same way. In Elite, you don't really need tools ingame to be any more or less effective, the game is pretty simple as is. So most guilds would have some reduced effectiveness, but that method of disallowing/discouraging/reduce effectiveness of guilds ingame by not supporting them ingame doesn't go very far. All it does is make a little bump in the road which might be enough for a lot of people, but after you go over the bump its pretty much smooth sailing.
Really, Elite Dangerous is really that shallow. All someone would have to do is point a finger, tell people to go it. They would have to do nothing else but log on open, go to wherever they were told to, and start killing players. If identification is an issue, they could just tell their players to name themselves a particular way or ensure players are at least forming wings. There is nothing else any of these people would have to do other than to tell people where to go in game and when to do it. Not supporting guilds doesn't make this any less effective because the game is shallow enough (in that aspect) as it is.
The argument I'm making, or the point rather, is that the fear of guilds because of what people can do is just very misplaced. They don't need guilds to do it. Its very possible to do currently, all it takes are people who are very good at being managers. Thats it. The better detterent to this behavior, rather than not allowing guilds or supporting them, is simply keeping the game with open/grouped/solo. If players can just play with a specific group or by themselves, its less rewarding to put the effort into organizing something like that if people can just log off yet still be able to play the game a different way.
Not supporting guilds ingame is a really dumb idea. You're effectively shutting down one avenue of making money. For instance, if goonswarm got interested in Elite Dangerous (lets just use 3000 members as thats when I last remember when I was on EVE), even if HALF of those people bought a copy of Elite Dangerous that would be $75000 in sales not including tax, of course. I'm not saying guilds would necessarily make them come here, but it just a really stupid idea to not offer guild support, especially if you want to make money by attracting players who might be interested in that. And who knows, of those players who might otherwise buy a copy, would spend money on the skins, merch, etc. Its just a really, really dumb move on FD's part.
Last edited:
Dingdingdingdingdiiiinnng!
I could have quoted all your comment but you found a button to press here
FD is very keen on forklifting pallets of money into their accounts and I'm sure if we could elaborate how it's possible with introducing guilds, they'll do it.
As they've cashed in a few platforms already technically they don't have to care of those paid already whether they are happy with the game or not after a certain change in features. They didn't even have to consider the quality of the guild update as long as they do something most customer wants and pays for.
Yeah, it's business, I hear it a lot when those feedbacks are coming in lack of quality, the game needs financial support, here you can have one
And as we know financial success is not necessarily triggered by quality but servitude and marketing. However this current architecture is a little bit feebled to create a stable multiplayer platforms so I guess the problem to implement guilds is rather technical.
(Sorry guys, this ball have been so high up.)
Last edited:
Play Eve.
Oh for the love off ...
"Blaze the trail your glorious leader has ordered you to blaze"
Can someone bring some water please? I'll do the stir.
If that's the game someone is happy to play (like follow a leader) why do you bother? It's optional and your trail is yours still to blaze.
It's been tried. Turned into starmud.
I'm voicing my opinion. I'm still allowed to do that right?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Of course players do not need to have in-game support for Guilds to harass other players. You do raise the interesting point - management - Guilds would probably result in less of a "one pilot, one ship" game and more of a "joined a Guild, expected to do what one is told to do" game. Mentioning the modes, I don't expect that there are any plans to change the three game modes and mode switching - these are core game features. Also, Open belongs to all players, not just those who need to group up and are trying to change the game to accommodate their play-style. The fact that players who want features like these often use the "if you don't like <insert proposed game mechanic that does not exist in the known design for the game>, go to Solo" trope would tend to suggest that, while considering those who are quite content with the status quo and are resisting such changes to be selfish, are at least as selfish themselves.
Given that on the first day of the GPP release of the Elite: Dangerous preview on Xbox One sales of the game jumped by about 30,000 with the game as it is (i.e. no Guild features), the 3,000 players that you consider *might* (no guarantees, of course) join the game if Frontier were to undertake a significant amount of development work to implement Guild features and, at the same time, commit to providing ongoing Guild content to ensure that the Guilds, once formed, don't get bored and cause mischief, looks quite paltry by comparison. I don't expect that $75,000 (less tax and probably Steam's cut) would go very far in paying for that extra development work.
Last edited:
Blazing the trial your glorious leader has ordered you to blaze is applicable to whats already in the game, PP. Just like players can pledge to NPCs, so do players pledge to actual people. Its the same concept, just applied to real people.
What I'm saying is, you don't have to invest much into it. I don't know what kind of work you would have to do in order to employ it, but for the work required, the very little and most basic form, would go a long way. Planetside 2, although a different game/genre, has gone for as long as it has only because it has this option of gameplay. It forms a foundation and gets people to play and to stay playing. I was an outfit leader and eventually became a member of one of the best outfits in the entire game. I hated the game eventually, but I stuck around (and spent A LOT of money) only because I loved the people I got to play the game with. And the game offered very little in outfit support other than a means to 'belong' to a group with a structure of leadership to command and control parts of the game.
I think you are thinking way too far ahead in terms of what you can or may do in regards to guild development. But the most basic form of being able to be a part of a group with options to talk to a group of players at will, an internalized communication network, would go a very long way and its touches nothing at all in any other aspect of the game.
Another game example is ARK. ARK isn't even finished and it has options for players to form a Tribe. The Tribe does nothing but take a person and say "You are now a part of this group" so that other people can identify that person as being a member of something. And this little tiny piece of the game basically created a form of metagame, because now you have all these different groups of players in a single server who either hate or work together. Nothing changed other than saying "You are now part of this group" and other plays say "He is part of that group". Nothing gets changed. Its just really amazing for something so simple to have such a profound impact, especially on those who do not already know or have friends playing the game as a group.
The point I'm making in this case is...you have to do very little to get a lot in return, at least in this case. You really have nothing else to change about the game if you were to put the option to form a guild. It would just form a foundation for players to start socializing with eachother either in a positive or negative fashion. Anything which comes afterward in terms of development is up in the air. But given what could be done to not alienate people, it seems really silly not to do it.
At least from my perspective, I do not have a guild or a group of people I play with. I play with maybe one or two other people on a constant basis, but we play different games. Would I join a guild if they were implemented? Maybe. That entirely depends on the people of that guild. I might join one because it would get me more interested in other parts of the game instead of just soloing in independent space. To know that I am not alone and that I may or may not have friends nearby could instill a sense of security. Or might make me feel obligated to offer my support to others who would otherwise get a facefull of beam/multicannon shells.
Game modes are fine, thats not really an issue I've ever had. I only care about myself. But as for metrics/finances, I was using Goonswarm as a number. There are more gaming groups other than just Goonswarm, but you're still alienating groups by not including it. Planetside 2 has one of the worst systems in place in regards to guild management. There is nothing to it other than a system to add people to a group, assign them a rank, and have officer/outfit voip/ingame chat options. But besides this, outfits offer nothing extra. However, even in its basic form, it gives a lot of players an option of entry to play Planetside 2 and enjoy it more so than if they were playing it on their own.
What I'm saying is, you don't have to invest much into it. I don't know what kind of work you would have to do in order to employ it, but for the work required, the very little and most basic form, would go a long way. Planetside 2, although a different game/genre, has gone for as long as it has only because it has this option of gameplay. It forms a foundation and gets people to play and to stay playing. I was an outfit leader and eventually became a member of one of the best outfits in the entire game. I hated the game eventually, but I stuck around (and spent A LOT of money) only because I loved the people I got to play the game with. And the game offered very little in outfit support other than a means to 'belong' to a group with a structure of leadership to command and control parts of the game.
I think you are thinking way too far ahead in terms of what you can or may do in regards to guild development. But the most basic form of being able to be a part of a group with options to talk to a group of players at will, an internalized communication network, would go a very long way and its touches nothing at all in any other aspect of the game.
Another game example is ARK. ARK isn't even finished and it has options for players to form a Tribe. The Tribe does nothing but take a person and say "You are now a part of this group" so that other people can identify that person as being a member of something. And this little tiny piece of the game basically created a form of metagame, because now you have all these different groups of players in a single server who either hate or work together. Nothing changed other than saying "You are now part of this group" and other plays say "He is part of that group". Nothing gets changed. Its just really amazing for something so simple to have such a profound impact, especially on those who do not already know or have friends playing the game as a group.
The point I'm making in this case is...you have to do very little to get a lot in return, at least in this case. You really have nothing else to change about the game if you were to put the option to form a guild. It would just form a foundation for players to start socializing with eachother either in a positive or negative fashion. Anything which comes afterward in terms of development is up in the air. But given what could be done to not alienate people, it seems really silly not to do it.
At least from my perspective, I do not have a guild or a group of people I play with. I play with maybe one or two other people on a constant basis, but we play different games. Would I join a guild if they were implemented? Maybe. That entirely depends on the people of that guild. I might join one because it would get me more interested in other parts of the game instead of just soloing in independent space. To know that I am not alone and that I may or may not have friends nearby could instill a sense of security. Or might make me feel obligated to offer my support to others who would otherwise get a facefull of beam/multicannon shells.
Last edited:
The NPC leaders don't 'control their people'
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
To clear up what would seem to be a bit of a misconception, Moderators on these Forums are not Frontier employees - we are unpaid volunteers drawn from the user-base here. We share the same privilege of expressing opinion on these Forums that all other members do and do not represent Frontier in that respect.
As to thinking too far ahead, if potential pitfalls are not considered at the earliest stages of the proposal process for a new game feature then nasty surprises may be waiting around the corner if the feature is eventually implemented.
An internal VOIP network for Guilds would presumably be a popular addition - this would require additional bandwidth that would need to be paid for and would add to the running costs of the game. At the moment with OOG tools being used, Frontier are not responsible for the costs associated with Guild chat.
Last edited:
Trust me, I know about guild voip. With Planetside 2 in mind, a huge issue was the voip ingame because Level 3 had issues somewhere. I forgot when but it eventually got resolved but a lot of times it was really flakey, but yes, definitely part of the running costs. Either way, it was just an example. Even if the game didn't have guild voip, guild text-based chat is still an option (I prefer this). Its still the same concept which still would offer a lot. I can only imagine how much a guild chat option would make people feel. Some would hate it, but I know there would definitely be people who would adore it. Otherwise dull trading routes would not be so boring with a group of people to talk to or listen.
Last edited:
whipdiddywhip
Banned
The NPC leaders don't 'control their people'
real player leaders would have no power to "control their ppl", unless ppl are so weak minded they let some internet nerd who they'll never have real contact with dictate their game to them
- Status