Guilds in Elite Dangerous

[Memnoch]

I have had plenty of experience with Guilds.

I have had limited experience with them over a variety of MMO's and can only say this: they can be a horrible experience.

I'm one of those players who likes to log on when I want to, not when the guild leader says. I am a team player but I don't like having to play those games to a time table, so now when I get invites I just politely decline. The benefits don't outweigh the negatives for me.

 

[Certain Death]

I guess I'm in the 'demographic' having played the original when it came out and not having played many MMOGs. There are some interesting arguments here; I came to this post expecting to dislike guilds, but actually the idea is growing on me; I would welcome the opportunity to meet and play with like minded individuals, get info and advice and also share the same.

On the flip side however I do dislike the idea of very large player factions making decisions that affect everyone’s gaming. This is a game, so it’s supposed to be fun, but because it’s a game people can make decisions and act without any real ramifications things might, and it’s a big might, get out of hand.

I’d be supporting this game whether it was only single player or only multiplayer, the fact that the choice is ours is great.

 

[Susimetsa]

This Game and its grouping system doesn't really facilitate cooperation directly. You need to ask strangers for help in the All group or enter into TEMPORARY groups (Alliances) which cease to exist the moment the last player leaves the game. All fine if everyone is friendly...

Yup, that's one of my gripes with the game design at this point. I'd like the grouping mechanics to be permanent, so that I know I'll be in the roleplaying group every time I log in (instead of "all" or "solo online").

I don't see a problem in the question of guilds vs. alliances on a general level, however. Guilds are rather annoying in all the other games that I've played, requiring you to put a silly handle in front of your name etc. etc. Alliances are a better concept, meaning that you are on friendly terms, but in no way obligated by any guild membership rules.

 

[Certain Death]

...
The problem is more that FD are creating more of an FPS game with supporting money-making activities. Despite "missions" and so on this is a game in which you grow your avatar in an effort to equip your ship better, so you can fly it and kill more efficiently.

Many of the people here want Elite to be an FPS basically. Each Space station is like the lobby in TF2 or CoD where you plan your next move, build up your player. You then launch and fly, fight, sell, rinse, repeat...

I think you are doing you fellow forum members diservice IMHO. Yes, a good part of the game is FPS, but there is so, so much more. The sandbox of the universe allows you to get wrapped up in your own little story folowing your lead and no-one else's.

Looking around at the quality of posts and threads; the arguement and debate; the stories and the banter. I feel that players in general want much more than just a FPS - certainly I do!

 

[ianw]

Well as I said I have no guild experience whatsoever - though I've read a lot since joining these and the SC forums in January.

I'm of the original Elite vintage - when I first saw the videos for ED one of the main things that interested me was co-op play.

That said I also prefer the flexibility to play when it suits me and I'm too long in the tooth to start taking orders from someone with a superiority complex or to play the role of some rookie/grunt in an well-established guild.

So if I find people with a similar outlook - and I doubt that will be a problem - then I'd be happy to have an informal arrangement via the forums.

 

[Certain Death]

Yup, that's one of my gripes with the game design at this point. I'd like the grouping mechanics to be permanent, so that I know I'll be in the roleplaying group every time I log in ...

I would agree, whilst I don't want to be married to other players it would be good to have more structured alliances that are semi-permanent.

I'd like to be able to be in an alliance with players outside of my instance and be able to contact them if they are elsewhere in the universe and then call for help or provide info on good finds (Asteroids rich in minerals/Missions/Polictical intrigue/the General weird and wonderful etc.)

 

[Caribou]

Yup, that's one of my gripes with the game design at this point. I'd like the grouping mechanics to be permanent, so that I know I'll be in the roleplaying group every time I log in (instead of "all" or "solo online").

I don't see a problem in the question of guilds vs. alliances on a general level, however. Guilds are rather annoying in all the other games that I've played, requiring you to put a silly handle in front of your name etc. etc. Alliances are a better concept, meaning that you are on friendly terms, but in no way obligated by any guild membership rules.

I'd agree totally with you, Permanence would be the thing that would help, but also Group/guild, comms/chat, external (Query) API.

I understand your point about annoying guilds, and proposed (Before understanding FDs proposal) that groups could be excluded much like individuals. So if Mega-Guild are always annoying you , you exclude them and suddenly the space lanes are back to the way they should be... Or as an alternative if the members of PanGalacticGargleBlasters always help you out then you could add them as a friendly group and match up where possible....

 

[Certain Death]

I understand your point about annoying and proposed (Before understanding FDs proposal) that groups could be excluded much like individuals. So if Mega-Guild are always annoying you , you exclude them and suddenly the space lanes are back to the way they should be...

Nonetheless in the on-line world this can still have affect on you: as an extreme if you are allied to the Empire with ony 10% of players and the other 90% are in the Federation and the two go war it's going to take some serious NPC action to stop the Empire falling, even though you never meet any of the players responsible.

I appreciate this is extreme and unlikely, but want it to get thought about.

 

[Caribou]

I think you are doing you fellow forum members disservice IMHO. Yes, a good part of the game is FPS, but there is so, so much more. The sandbox of the universe allows you to get wrapped up in your own little story following your lead and no-one else's.

Looking around at the quality of posts and threads; the argument and debate; the stories and the banter. I feel that players in general want much more than just a FPS - certainly I do!

I agree most people want more Not sure I'm doing anyone a disservice however.

IMHO this is much more FPS than MMO(RPG) - note the RPG - I have been gradually realizing through interaction in the DDF and the responses of Devs just where on the spectrum FPS <---> MMO(RPG) this game lies and as a disclaimer just how far from the game I wanted. Others disagree with me but it is my genuine opinion....

Nonetheless in the on-line world this can still have affect on you: as an extreme if you are allied to the Empire with ony 10% of players and the other 90% are in the Federation and the two go war it's going to take some serious NPC action to stop the Empire falling, even though you never meet any of the players responsible.

I appreciate this is extreme and unlikely, but want it to get thought about.

I'm not sure just how much players really affect things - it's still quite an unanswered point for me.

The point about the group exclusion however is the exclusion of the players from your experience. They could do what they wanted and not cause you to be inconvenienced through their individual members actions.

 

[Susimetsa]

I have been gradually realizing through interaction in the DDF and the responses of Devs just where on the spectrum FPS <---> MMO(RPG) this game lies

Could you expand upon this and write some bullet points to show how you think that Elite4 is more FPS than RPG?

In my thinking the pro-RPG aspects include:

- freedom to choose your own path and missions (very important)
- freedom to roleplay your character (I assume this will be supported at least when the walk-around functionality is introduced)
- freedom to avoid fighting if you want to (out in the unexplored regions or in safe Core systems)

 

[Cathy]

Without wishing to offend anyone, I get the feeling that a lot of backers have never played an MMO, or any sort of online game that has guilds.

I have some, Hellhawk, and I was happy to be in guilds some of the time (choosing to be a fairly casual member of co-operative ones which had a core of dedicated players but welcomed those of us who didn't have so much time to play). My experience of guilds was generally positive.

But I don't want to be part of a game-structured guild in ED. I'm very happy with the grouping system as it stands for match-making - the best of all worlds for online play I believe. The proposal for alliances covers everything that players can't structure themselves, such as defining their rules-set (so they can fight each other without criminal penalty, for example), and sharing responsibility for each other's actions. Beyond that, players can pretty much create their own structure and rules outside the game code and ally within the game when they want to. I don't think ED needs to define a guild architecture for players to play that way, and I'd rather the game did not do it for them because there's then a danger it can become weighted against players who don't join guilds.

 

[Certain Death]

...
I'm not sure just how much players really affect things - it's still quite an unanswered point for me.

The point about the group exclusion however is the exclusion of the players from your experience. They could do what they wanted and not cause you to be inconvenienced through their individual members actions.

David has specifically said that player actions, and therefore the consequences, are greater than those of the NPCs.

What 'greater' here really means we won't know until we get stuck in.

If a group of players act collectively with a combined goal, surely there will be an impact? If not what's ths point of the sandbox approach. If you then get groups combining, meaning that many, many players act collectively then surely this will be system and ultimately faction changing if not held in check (assuming you wanted to of course!)

 

[Hamerstein]

I have some, Hellhawk, and I was happy to be in guilds some of the time (choosing to be a fairly casual member of co-operative ones which had a core of dedicated players but welcomed those of us who didn't have so much time to play). My experience of guilds was generally positive.

But I don't want to be part of a game-structured guild in ED. I'm very happy with the grouping system as it stands for match-making - the best of all worlds for online play I believe. The proposal for alliances covers everything that players can't structure themselves, such as defining their rules-set (so they can fight each other without criminal penalty, for example), and sharing responsibility for each other's actions. Beyond that, players can pretty much create their own structure and rules outside the game code and ally within the game when they want to. I don't think ED needs to define a guild architecture for players to play that way, and I'd rather the game did not do it for them because there's then a danger it can become weighted against players who don't join guilds.

This.

Adding a guild concept to a game requires the game design to include guild level content. Not all guilds will be formed for that purpose, but enough will that it needs to be catered for.

As soon as you introduce a high end game (raiding), you create a multiple tier structure within the game itself. Raiding has to be rewarded (or it isn't worth doing), and the rewards separate the haves from the have-nots. Rewards aside, it still creates a perception amongst players that they have to be in a guild to experience all of the game.

As a long time MMO player at the sharp end of guild raiding (and personally I love the guild environment), I'm rather glad that ED hasn't gone down this route.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I'm one of those players who likes to log on when I want to, not when the guild leader says.

You joined the wrong kind of guild then - you need a "casual" guild that makes no demands. It sounds like you joined raiding guilds that require you to be online at certain times to assist in the decimation of tough monsters.

Adding a guild concept to a game requires the game design to include guild level content. Not all guilds will be formed for that purpose, but enough will that it needs to be catered for.

I do not agree Hamerstein.

First I need to find the quote from FD that said they wouldn't exclude group only content ... that's half way towards Guild only content. (Or have I read into it what I wanted to see - was in DDF about missions - need to check)

At the moment there is only 2 things you can do to ensure you're with like minded people:

• Group : that excludes everyone else from your universe which can be lonely if you play at odd hours
• Alliance : this is only temporary, and all "acts" done within the Alliance are shared between members; free to shoot each other; etc, etc.

There is room for a middle ground - Guild.

Same as Alliance, but permanent.

 

[Hamerstein]

You joined the wrong kind of guild then - you need a "casual" guild that makes no demands. It sounds like you joined raiding guilds that require you to be online at certain times to assist in the decimation of tough monsters.



I do not agree Hamerstein.

First I need to find the quote from FD that said they wouldn't exclude group only content ... that's half way towards Guild only content. (Or have I read into it what I wanted to see - was in DDF about missions - need to check).

I can't find the reference either, but I do recall some comment about alliance based content. From what I recall of the discussion it was more a case of increasing the chance of success than being exclusively alliance based (eg. taking player escorts for that dangerous trade run).

At the moment there is only 2 things you can do to ensure you're with like minded people:

• Group : that excludes everyone else from your universe which can be lonely if you play at odd hours
• Alliance : this is only temporary, and all "acts" done within the Alliance are shared between members; free to shoot each other; etc, etc.

There is room for a middle ground - Guild.

Same as Alliance, but permanent.

It's the permanence that generates the issue. With casual alliances, there really is no requirement for high end content, it might be easier to do things with more players, but not mandatory. Once you introduce a permanent guild concept, you make having guild level content mandatory - because guilds take work (as you know yourself). If there's no reward for guilds (content), why bother forming them? Just have a bunch of friends who will help you out if you ask, without the structure. There's a symbiosis between guilds and in-game guild content.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

At the moment there is only 2 things you can do to ensure you're with like minded people

Not that it necessarily has much bearing on the guilds argument (which having not played MMORPGs, I'm pretty ignorant on) but you didn't mention the friends list. Hopefully the tools for that will be sophisticated enough to help organise various social groups.

 

[Hellhawk666]

OK - this is a long reply from the OP to some of the comments made so far. First, thank you everyone - I appreciate your views. As a relative newcomer to ED I have missed out on a lot of the history of its current design (who can be bothered reading every old thread?) and this has brought me up to speed, if nothing else!

@ Jaboai, Caribou and Cathy:

From your comments I think we have had similar gaming experiences, and see the situation in the same way. Guilds can be very useful, but the lack of in game support for them is a problem that is yet to be widely appreciated in ED. It won't break the deal (I hope) but I think it's an unappreciated opportinity that has been missed by the developers in their determination to NOT make a traditional MMORPG.

@ Liqua

Guilds are useful in grouping together like minded people, and with the appropriate support structure (like private chat channels / Email / Guild storages / etc) they can enhance the experience of the game.

They can also be VERY tiring when all you do when you logon is sort out the in-game bickering from disgruntled members .. sometimes that's all it felt like I was doing

Yes - couldn't agree more. A good guild can make a game so much more enjoyable and create new real-world friendships. True, they can sometimes have problems, but you can always walk away, plus I don't see that type of intense guild developing in ED.

@ Memnoch

I'm one of those players who likes to log on when I want to, not when the guild leader says. I am a team player but I don't like having to play those games to a time table, so now when I get invites I just politely decline. The benefits don't outweigh the negatives for me.

I can understand that point of view, but I seriously doubt it will happen in this game. Rostered forming-up for raids etc is a part of high level stuff in the "traditional" WoW-type MMORPG, and I don't think ED will provide the opportunities for that sort of activity.

@ Certain Death

There are some interesting arguments here; I came to this post expecting to dislike guilds, but actually the idea is growing on me; I would welcome the opportunity to meet and play with like minded individuals, get info and advice and also share the same.

On the flip side however I do dislike the idea of very large player factions making decisions that affect everyone’s gaming.

Player factions affecting general gameplay is not the rule. It sure does happen in EVE (the game is structured to encourage it) and in many others to an extent, but once again I just can't see it happening in ED.

Looking around at the quality of posts and threads; the arguement and debate; the stories and the banter. I feel that players in general want much more than just a FPS - certainly I do!

And I can assure you that a guild can be a tool for creating that experience.

@ Cathy

... The proposal for alliances covers everything that players can't structure themselves, such as defining their rules-set (so they can fight each other without criminal penalty, for example), and sharing responsibility for each other's actions. Beyond that, players can pretty much create their own structure and rules outside the game code and ally within the game when they want to. I don't think ED needs to define a guild architecture for players to play that way, and I'd rather the game did not do it for them because there's then a danger it can become weighted against players who don't join guilds.

Once again, I don't think that will happen in ED, and I explain why lower down. But would you agree that a guild channel in chat (or whatever comms system we have) would be a useful thing?

@ Hamerstein

Adding a guild concept to a game requires the game design to include guild level content.

No, I have to disagree. What you are saying is that in every game you have played that was the structure and that's how guilds fitted in, but I am NOT proposing anything like that. Again - see below:

Once you introduce a permanent guild concept, you make having guild level content mandatory - because guilds take work (as you know yourself). If there's no reward for guilds (content), why bother forming them?

And again, why get hung up on having a big cumbersome authoritarian, ego-driven guild - I sure don't want that - but it doesn't have to be like that.


IN GENERAL

OK - Caribou described ED as a FPS, or at least a lot of people will play it that way. Many would disagree, but I see what he is getting at. In comparison with the old-school highly structured MMORPG, ED is a bit of an FPS, but far more important is that it will be a SANDBOX, and that's the crucial thing. It is not quest-directed and has little inter-character competition, but it is still essentially PvP.

Sandbox games can get dull quickly - I don't think ED will, but one way to stop this happening is to make sure the social "life" is strong - DB himself is highly in favour of this.

I do not think any of the pitfalls of guilds that have happened in other games of my experience (WoW, AoC, Fallen Earth, EVE, Vendetta, Rift, TSW, STO, SWTOR, etc) will happen here precisely because ED is not designed as a heavily scripted, quest-led game with high level tiers for mass group raiding by large parties of uber characters OR as an anarchic free-for-all that is rife for corruption and bullying like EVE.

I'm also not proposing a complex in-game system of guild management or guild level competition. However I do think something as simple as a guild chat channel ingame would give a vital spark of communications and social connection between disparate people who might never otherwise meet because of the exclusive nature of the "friends/ignore" system and the transitory nature of "alliances".

Yes, I know that this could all happen for groups and alliances by doing it off-game, but that is really cumbersome. A guild channel would cut through all that. This is my beef with the game design - this sort of inter-player structure has been left out, and it can make all the difference.

How is this a bad thing?

Anyway - that's more than enough from me and my soap box. Feel free to throw tomatoes, rotten cabbages, etc now

 

[Caribou]

Could you expand upon this and write some bullet points to show how you think that Elite4 is more FPS than RPG?

In my thinking the pro-RPG aspects include:

- freedom to choose your own path and missions (very important)
- freedom to roleplay your character (I assume this will be supported at least when the walk-around functionality is introduced)
- freedom to avoid fighting if you want to (out in the unexplored regions or in safe Core systems)

Ultimately this is my Opinion and Feeling, but you asked...

For me it's a problem with the actual mechanisms in the game. Here's a list with some explanation below...

1) Social aspects are crippled.
2) I actually see a huge bias toward fighting (To the point of it being pretty unavoidable)
3) There is little to no creativity in the game
4) activities in the game are quite limited.
5) PvP is pretty much enforced in MP
6) Punishment for "Bad" Behaviour is pushing to All (To be reaped)

------

Firstly Single player Elite is not the game I want or will play....

(1) So we've mentioned and agree that grouping could be better

(2) It is what it is, I said it earlier. The game is Buy Stuff, Choose destination, Launch, Fly, (Possibly/Probably) Fight, (Sell, Repair or Rebuild) - Do it again. Missions will be the same with some story arc I hope , but then again I don't think that will be there either. I don't need an arc to get into the character but it gives a general direction to take - without some flavour it will get boring quickly. Missions will be generated by Procedural Generation... it means there is a formulaic generation of the things you see and happen. I think it will be quite "Samey"

Yes all games are like this (To answer Tinmans point earlier). This is coupled to points (3) and (4) for me however. I can buy and sell stuff but not craft things. As far as I know I can't customize my ship very much.

In WoW (For example) in addition to the main grind and missions I can Cook, Sow, Make Armour, Magic Weapons etc... etc... I spent hours looking for specific ingredients for tailoring and Cooking. It gave me a freedom that I think you were alluding to in your points. I chose my routes and "missions" based on developing a non essential side of the character I played. I traded and talked with other players about these things

I don't see any replacement for this in E: D - I must fly , trade, ....

As part of this I used to create enchantments (totally useless in some cases) that had specific effects and sold them to other players for vanity effects on their weapons (fire, frost enchantments that change the look) Or portals to places for convenient travel. Totally outside the main game play but quite profitable (well was). Interaction (Role-playing sort of) with other players in a way that wasn't specifically intended by the devs.

Ok this leads to (5). PvP in its self is not the bad thing, I will embrace it. But because I am unlikely to know people in game, or be near people I know, I must be ready to defend. True I don't know how it will play out and fine it gives you the rush of whatever, but it does bias me toward fighting. If I play hardcore then I am going to avoid people I don't know just in case...

Players may not behave in a manner that I am expecting because they will and can be unpredictable which should add to the RPGness right? But What choices are there for the player? Fight, Hail or Ignore. Hailing could be social and I would hope it happens, but to what end? Trading will be limited to commodities which can then be sold in some market. Because of (3) and (4) we are limited again in what we can do.

(6) Punishment is to be seen by all players, so they can do what is expected (Kill you for the bounty) - Again a bias toward fighting....

I expect people will throw the "It's only the initial release, later patches will add things" - but whens that going to be and to what extent will it move things and in what direction? I can't predict it and neither can anyone else but my view is that most people don't want MMORPG like play they want FPS (Or Twitch) play (Including the Devs in that statement).

OK - Caribou described ED as a FPS, or at least a lot of people will play it that way. Many would disagree, but I see what he is getting at. In comparison with the old-school highly structured MMORPG, ED is a bit of an FPS, but far more important is that it will be a SANDBOX, and that's the crucial thing. It is not quest-directed and has little inter-character competition, but it is still essentially PvP.

Sandbox games can get dull quickly - I don't think ED will, but one way to stop this happening is to make sure the social "life" is strong - DB himself is highly in favour of this.

I read this after my ramble above - yes thats exactly what I have been trying to say and probably formulate in my own mind.... I also don't think the Sandbox is quite so open as people want....

 

[Hamerstein]

@Hellhawk

If you just wanted a social channel for friends to talk in, we've already got that (second bullet point in Player to Player section).

So the only thing missing is a tag before/after your name showing a guild affiliation.

 

[Caribou]

@Hellhawk

If you just wanted a social channel for friends to talk in, we've already got that (second bullet point in Player to Player section).

So the only thing missing is a tag before/after your name showing a guild affiliation.

And permanence of membership and group..... it should be a mechanism to band people together socially. But it doesn't have to have content specific for guilds...