That, to me, is just your interpretation of what multiplayer means. To me multiplayer only means that there are other real players that you can encounter in the gameworld, that's it! I don't see multiplayer and instantly think social/guilds. A game doesn't have to be social, doesn't have to have guilds, to have multiple players in the same world. The game be be entirely single player competitively driven and still be multiplayer, for example. ED is somewhat beyond that (you don't have to fight and you can Wing up) but somewhat less than the tired old trope of guilds, guild leaders and guild banks - and that's a good place to be in an awful lot of player's opinions.
Guilds in Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter JohnStabler
- Start date
- Status
That, to me, is just your interpretation of what multiplayer means. To me multiplayer only means that there are other real players that you can encounter in the gameworld, that's it! I don't see multiplayer and instantly think social/guilds. A game doesn't have to be social, doesn't have to have guilds, to have multiple players in the same world. The game be be entirely single player competitively driven and still be multiplayer, for example. ED is somewhat beyond that (you don't have to fight and you can Wing up) but somewhat less than the tired old trope of guilds, guild leaders and guild banks - and that's a good place to be in an awful lot of player's opinions.
Yep, that's exactly my stance on the matter as well.
Good post. +rep. A+++ Would read again.
I would like to add that it's not just to you Jakobai, it's the exact definition of multiplayer
Cradle2Grave
Banned
Guilds are rubbish and always run by odious neckbeards.
Quite so.
If you keep getting declined or too nervous to join one. It's not their fault
LOL
Some People want Games with Guilds, some want Games without Guild, or only small or only big Guilds or a mix of them or whatever. Nothing wrong with any of that, nothing wrong with Elite catering to those who want a Game without Guilds.
Granted it does depend a lot on what People want when they talk about Guilds. Some Guild Chat and a extra Tag next to the CMDR Name? Sure, why not I have nothing against that. Guilds owning systems and being able to dictate where I can go and where not? Hell no, other players have no right to tell me what I can do and what not.
Granted it does depend a lot on what People want when they talk about Guilds. Some Guild Chat and a extra Tag next to the CMDR Name? Sure, why not I have nothing against that. Guilds owning systems and being able to dictate where I can go and where not? Hell no, other players have no right to tell me what I can do and what not.
Last edited:
There are other ways to provide players with the means to communicate and coordinate without needing top-down player controlled organisational structures. We already have Powers, so why not bolt comms on there?
I have repeatedly suggested a new type of in-game comms channel, a Power Hub. This would be a post board that is based on simple templates, combined with an icon-driven language. No general chat. No replies, even. Strict flood control.
I suggest limiting the scope of content to (initially) 3 main types: Ideas, Alerts and Invites.
This solution would allow PP strategy to be coordinated without translation or moderation.
Your posts would possess an initial Post Power, determined by your own Power Rank. Post Power would decay, and would disappear once Post Power falls to zero. Posts could receive a Powerup (upvote) from others. Your own Powerup strength would also be based on your Power Rank, so high-ranked pledgers have a bit more of a voice, but their posts would still need Powerups to survive, and posts from new pledgers could still be heard if they receive enough Powerups to survive.
Duplicate posts would count as a Powerup to the original post, so pledgers couldn't just copy good ideas and farm Powerups.
Some types of posts, as mentioned earlier, would have a natural lifespan, and would cease to exist after that, regardless of their Post Power.
Every post would also have a Post Rank, which would determine who could see it. This would be determined by the poster at submission time, and would range from Open (visible to all), up to their own Power Rank. Spies would therefore have to work their way up the ranks to access top-level comms.
Of course, the game itself could also add posts to the Power Hub. Perhaps your Power's chief communications officer might post a few to-level directives containing strategic objectives, or a loyalist station with a market in need of some support might invite the pledgers to a sale.
I was thinking about the idea of combining Merits and the Power-Up idea, but that would need more thought so that fifth-columnists couldn't flood into a Power Hub, farm merits for doing useless things, and pledge those same Merits to lift the Power Rank of one of their agents into the higher echelons of the target Power. If it could be made to work, however, it would allow good coordinators to rank up, even if they weren't great at other bits of the game.
I'm sure this will be torn to pieces, but I think there's a decent idea at the heart of it. It helps pledgers to foster a community spirit, to operate as a coordinated unit and to participate in the process of determining what happens, but also doesn't demand a lot of human resources to maintain, and isn't able to be defaced by trolls or immature kids.
I have repeatedly suggested a new type of in-game comms channel, a Power Hub. This would be a post board that is based on simple templates, combined with an icon-driven language. No general chat. No replies, even. Strict flood control.
I suggest limiting the scope of content to (initially) 3 main types: Ideas, Alerts and Invites.
- Ideas would be general proposals (fortify/undermine/prepare), and would only last for one PP Turn.
- Alerts would be informational (heavy pirate activity over there, that system is all out of tea).
- Invites would have a location and time limit. The time limit would either be ranged (come here until this time/date to get free stuff) or specific (come here on this date to escort/raid/etc).
This solution would allow PP strategy to be coordinated without translation or moderation.
Your posts would possess an initial Post Power, determined by your own Power Rank. Post Power would decay, and would disappear once Post Power falls to zero. Posts could receive a Powerup (upvote) from others. Your own Powerup strength would also be based on your Power Rank, so high-ranked pledgers have a bit more of a voice, but their posts would still need Powerups to survive, and posts from new pledgers could still be heard if they receive enough Powerups to survive.
Duplicate posts would count as a Powerup to the original post, so pledgers couldn't just copy good ideas and farm Powerups.
Some types of posts, as mentioned earlier, would have a natural lifespan, and would cease to exist after that, regardless of their Post Power.
Every post would also have a Post Rank, which would determine who could see it. This would be determined by the poster at submission time, and would range from Open (visible to all), up to their own Power Rank. Spies would therefore have to work their way up the ranks to access top-level comms.
Of course, the game itself could also add posts to the Power Hub. Perhaps your Power's chief communications officer might post a few to-level directives containing strategic objectives, or a loyalist station with a market in need of some support might invite the pledgers to a sale.
I was thinking about the idea of combining Merits and the Power-Up idea, but that would need more thought so that fifth-columnists couldn't flood into a Power Hub, farm merits for doing useless things, and pledge those same Merits to lift the Power Rank of one of their agents into the higher echelons of the target Power. If it could be made to work, however, it would allow good coordinators to rank up, even if they weren't great at other bits of the game.
I'm sure this will be torn to pieces, but I think there's a decent idea at the heart of it. It helps pledgers to foster a community spirit, to operate as a coordinated unit and to participate in the process of determining what happens, but also doesn't demand a lot of human resources to maintain, and isn't able to be defaced by trolls or immature kids.
Dropping in again to say guilds would be awesome.
A guild, to me, implies a professional organisation. Does that really belong in a game where there aren't really any traditional professions? Everybody can do anything as they choose, at the moment. What gameplay value to the average player exists in imposing restrictions on that freedom, via carrots/sticks handed out by guilds?
Inorite, we should have Fleets. Fuel Rats could be a Fleet, Code could, you could, asp wouldn't, but I would join one, we could have fleets which gave us instancing preference and we'd mostly see each other and not so much the guys who lone wolf.
This could fit Elite if it was done similar to GTAV on Console and not like WoW or EvE style. There are a good many parallels between GTAV and Elite, experienced gamers would notice, and the Gang features largest impact is a fight over a single 'instance' typically. Avoiding this stuff is easy, Three modes and 32 man, so nobody can ever grief the shapoopy out of all the other players. It would be boss, and fit like a glove, imo. Anyone else had experience in GTAV console Gang play that can remark on this?
Last edited:
You can have that, put the People in the friendslist and they get a higher Priority for Matchmaking, you also can get 100% chance of only get matched with these People when forming a Group. You do have quite a lot of control over matchmaking in ED.
Dropping in again to say guilds would be a gigantic bucket of plops.
Ill bring friends when we get guilds. Lots of them.
(and better instancing, sorry)
(and better instancing, sorry)
Last edited:
Thanks for the update, I still disagree
In a few sentences, can you explain why you think that way?
It would just be a secondary friends list with a global chat channel that would allow players to organize better in game. Help me understand why you think it would be bad for Elite please.
I think this chap says it better than I could and he knows a bit more than me about space games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c;t=19m41s
Would it just be "a secondary friends list with a global chat channel", I doubt it. Adding "global chat" to the P2P network in game which could adversely affect the matchmaking. Or you could get teamspeak and make a website (these both worked pretty well in the games I played in guilds previously).
Then there is the fact it would take dev time away from things that are long overdue, for something that was never part of the plan.
I guess I just don't understand what keeps this thread going. People who want guilds and people who dont, arguments presented on both sides haven't changed since the first couple of pages. It seems like people on both sides seem to think that if I keep shouting down the other side the other side will cede.
Braben said he doesn't want guilds and then turned around and put guilds in the game, (PP). I don't care if the game gets player guilds or not, if we get them I'd try it out to see if i liked it if not then I would leave. Just like pp if I dont want anything to do with it then it doesn't affect me.
Braben said he doesn't want guilds and then turned around and put guilds in the game, (PP). I don't care if the game gets player guilds or not, if we get them I'd try it out to see if i liked it if not then I would leave. Just like pp if I dont want anything to do with it then it doesn't affect me.
PP is not "guilds", you are supporting an AI faction, not a clan leader.
There are some people who bought the game and are happy with it and there are others that are not, the people that are happy tend to be the one's that did some research before buying.
PS
If you think this one is a endless circle look here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=145309
There is a link in the first post to its predecessor which was 10k posts long, the MK2 I linked is at 8675 posts. In MK2 read posts 1 & 3 on page 1, they quote the devs thoughts on most of the things that are repeatedly "discussed" later.
- Status