Guilds in Elite Dangerous

[Hellhawk666]

Leaving aside the question of whether "guild" is a useful description of people that want to be part of a strong team, I'd like to ask a question of the people planning to be in the "all" group but not looking to join such a team: what are you looking for? Is it about meeting the greatest number of new people? Is it about one-on-one combat? Is it about watching life unfold before your eyes?

There are a two main things that will make me want to stay in the all-players group as, mostly, a lone-wolf.

One is the "watching life unfold" concept. The knowledge that there is a vast potential group of characters in the game that are not simply pre-programmed NPCs, constantly patrolling the same area and forever standing in the same spot and reacting to every player in the same way. Other player characters add variety, randomness and "life" to a game. Even if you don't like the individual players or the way they engage with you (or against you) there is at least a real person behind the character. PvP combat is also a part of this, but not a major part for me.

The second is the pleasure of occasional interaction towards a common goal - being in a location and having a bit of difficulty achieving a goal and suddenly another player comes along, doing something similar. You casually team up, maybe even pick up another player or two, and enjoy co-op play for a while. I might even friend them formally and seek to team up again, and maybe (if it is possible) make a permanent alliance.

The chances for experiencing the game this way will be greatest in the all-player group. I have no preconceived plan to join a clan, guild, group or whatever, but then again I have nothing against the idea either. I'll be looking to play the game the same way regardless, and if a temporary or permanent alliance allowed me to maximize my enjoyment of the game then I'd join one. If not then I'd continue to play solo.

Playing in the all-players group means that I can be part of an alliance and still meet the maximum number of other players, whereas if I join a private group I am instantly isolated from the rest of the game universe. In fact one concern I have is that the player base could fragment into small private groups or solo players and the "all" area will be impoverished as a result. Alliances are fine as a mechanism for keeping a bunch of friends instanced together, but groups are an exclusion mechanism.

 

[jabokai]

How does that contradict my assumption? I made an assumption, if you will I postulated a hypothesis of what the poll result means. I provided arguments and examined alternatives. There is evidence in form of opinions expressed in the thread. Just because the poll question doesn't include my hypothesis doesn't make it inherently false. You need to attack my arguments or evidence. Or provide a more plausible alternative.

I understand you have a problem with my assumption, because it makes the case against guild support weaker. And maybe I'm wrong. But I don't see any counter arguments made. I suspect you can't make any, dislike where this is going, and instead try to derail the discussion.


What is the discussion? That we need guild support and rules to manage a more enjoyable gameplay between lone wolfs and guilds/alliances/clans.

Okay, so you've turned the argument towards your assumption, while not wanting to admit that what you actually wrote was wrong, when referencing the poll - which is what jedt and I were talking about all along. Fair enough, a lot of people just hate admitting they were wrong!

As for you assumption, it's still incorrect for me personally as I have no issue with people forming collectives outwith the game - how on Earth would you stop that? It's impossible. But what can be done is for the game mechanisms to support both group and solo play, and that seems to be how it is so far, without it imbalancing either of them. For example, Frontier have said that they will use game mechanics to combat griefing, rather than having a hands-on approach. So imagine a group of players intent only on killing for no purpose other than to kill other players - they will get zero kills awarded for every player that doesn't have a bounty on them. Think about that, how much fun does that take from this group? Also, they will amass bounties fairly quickly too and the response may well be an NPC intervention rather than a player one. Again, think about that - where is their notoriety, where is their "uberslayerz are so bad" reputation if a bunch of NPCs take them down and nobody else even notices?

My main problem with in game support for guilds if that I just don't want to see guild tags and decals and bars/buildings/stations that are guild tagged... it will somewhat spoil the backdrop of the game for me. As others have said, the game has factions and organisations that are tied to the fiction - that's the colour and the shape that I want the galaxy to have, not "lords of lol" and "pewpewpewurdead".

The other problem is the slippery slope, and yes I'm aware that you will likely link to your little fallacy site and the slippery slope fallacy. But if you give players guilds and yet the game doesn't seem to promote guild play then guilds will ask - why give us guilds? And it will be a valid question - why give something from other games (guilds) and then none of the gameplay people would expect from their experience in other games?

How about we try a multiplayer game without guilds <gasp> and see how it pans out? In effect, that is what's happening anyway as Frontier have said several times that guilds are not going to be in the initial release but they are (sadly for me) looking at putting them in a future update.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Frontier have said several times that guilds are not going to be in the initial release but they are (sadly for me) looking at putting them in a future update.

Oh pants, REALLY???

I thought they had said no guilds period.

Oh well, at least I will get to experience the multiplayer universe for a short period of time before going over to the friends only universe.

maybe we can set up a "guild free" guild and anyone in that can get invited to our semi private "friends only" game.

The only rule is, you do your own thing and help out if you happen to be in the same area if you choose to, but no groups of >2 or 3 players sticking together long term.

It wont be the same as having everyone in the universe but at least may offer some of what I am hoping the game will be like, rather than having to just be offline.

 

[jabokai]

Oh pants, REALLY???

I thought they had said no guilds period.

Maybe I was (accidentaly) exaggerating! I tried to find quotes where they said guilds were planned for a future release but couldn't. What I did find was that it was something they'd consider for a future release... so we have hope!

From here -

One thing that many people have asked about is the inclusion of an in-game guild or clan system, so that players can organise themselves into social groups. Unfortunately this isn’t something that is planned for initial release, but may be considered as a post-launch addition:

Sandy: Voluntary only – there will not to my knowledge be an ‘official’ in-game definition of this.
Michael: Not to begin with, the player groups are organised by the players themselves. This may be expanded after the initial release.
​

And from later in the thread -

In regards to clans and guilds, this isn't something that we're leaving out for a specific design reason. Its more to do with prioritising features for the initial release. This should hopefully mean that if we do implement it later we will be able to make it a much 'fuller' feature. Players will still be able to organise themselves into smaller private groups at launch though.

 

[Gibbonici]

Leaving aside the question of whether "guild" is a useful description of people that want to be part of a strong team, I'd like to ask a question of the people planning to be in the "all" group but not looking to join such a team: what are you looking for? Is it about meeting the greatest number of new people? Is it about one-on-one combat? Is it about watching life unfold before your eyes?

For me it's about being just-some-guy going about my business and meeting other just-some-guys along the way. Some will be hostile, some will be friendly, some will just pass by in the dark. I'm fully expecting to get blown up and blow some other players up when necessary, and having to figure out how to pick and dodge my fights.

But I guess the main thing I'm looking for in multiplayer is tension. Is that other player that pops up on your scope going to be a problem? Do you go cold and wait for them to pass? Do you fire up your weapons as a precaution and continue on your way? You watch them and you watch them, waiting for some tell that'll give away their intentions, keeping one finger on the FSD button and another on the trigger - all the while knowing that they're doing the same with you... Tension. It's what set DayZ above all other games back in the early days before it turned into a predictable FFA deathmatch. It's what sets Sergio Leone apart from Michael Bay.

I've never subscribed to views like "MMO is all about PvP; PvP or GTFO", or "MMO is all about guilds; guild up or GTFO" or any other of those other overbearing, game-claiming viewpoints. Massive multiplayer offers as many gameplay opportunities as there are players.

I'll have a few gaming mates on Skype, and sometimes we'll meet up to have adventures together, but as we've got jobs, families and real-life commitments between us and live in a variety of timezones we'll all be out there doing our own thing for the most part, in a galaxy of thousands doing the same thing.

And hopefully bricking it half the time.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

For me it's about being just-some-guy going about my business and meeting other just-some-guys along the way. Some will be hostile, some will be friendly, some will just pass by in the dark. I'm fully expecting to get blown up and blow some other players up when necessary, and having to figure out how to pick and dodge my fights.

This (and the other replies) got me thinking - what if we smudged the boundaries between the groups a bit? I think I would be happy to be in a publicly visible solo group where you could hail me and request a rendezvous, but if you tried to force your way into my instance we would each fight NPCs in our own instance instead of fighting each other in a shared instance.

The frequency of NPC attacks will most likely be based on player data anyway, so technically I wouldn't be any more likely to be attacked. And having to request entry to an instance takes non-consensual PvP out of the equation, which should encourage a more hospitable atmosphere (and force rude people to hail then troll, which I can ignore easily enough). With those caveats, is there anything a lone wolf would miss in a publicly visible solo group?

 

[Stachel]

This (and the other replies) got me thinking - what if we smudged the boundaries between the groups a bit? I think I would be happy to be in a publicly visible solo group where you could hail me and request a rendezvous, but if you tried to force your way into my instance we would each fight NPCs in our own instance instead of fighting each other in a shared instance.

The frequency of NPC attacks will most likely be based on player data anyway, so technically I wouldn't be any more likely to be attacked. And having to request entry to an instance takes non-consensual PvP out of the equation, which should encourage a more hospitable atmosphere (and force rude people to hail then troll, which I can ignore easily enough). With those caveats, is there anything a lone wolf would miss in a publicly visible solo group?

I think the vast majority of players will be predators. Trading will stop being fun about 3 hrs after the game is released. Once you've acquired sufficient funds to provide yourself with a decent boomstick platform, seeking out and murdering other players will be the most fun you can have. I go so far as to suggest it will be the only way to play the game that has any lasting appeal.

The herbivores will be in the minority. For the first few weeks it will be ace until they all cry off in to private groups. Then the multiplayer aspect of the game will be just sharks getting blown up by bigger sharks. Eventually the sharks will organize in to informal co-operatives utilizing the meta game ie. farming currency to produce a limitless supply of top spec boomsticks. Then it will be war of the sharks. Not all the sharks will be pirates obviously but it will mean that multiplayer ALL will be quite a challenge in core systems.

Hopefully that's an overly bleak prediction and the size of the gamespace and the number of players both logging in and allowed in instances will put a limit on over-fishing and provide enough breathing space for everyone to play in ALL most of the time. Assuming they choose to. Which I hope they do.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think the vast majority of players will be predators. Trading will stop being fun about 3 hrs after the game is released. Once you've acquired sufficient funds to provide yourself with a decent boomstick platform, seeking out and murdering other players will be the most fun you can have. I go so far as to suggest it will be the only way to play the game that has any lasting appeal.

Trading maybe holds no appeal for you, it does for me. If, however, your prediction is correct then it may be that the game needs to be tweaked so that traders (with low player kills / earnings ratios) are subtly kept apart from PK-pirates with high player/NPC kill ratios.

The herbivores will be in the minority. For the first few weeks it will be ace until they all cry off in to private groups. Then the multiplayer aspect of the game will be just sharks getting blown up by bigger sharks.

Your tone fairly clearly indicates your view - have fun in the shark pool.

This is why allowing people to flip groups won't work very well. Or at least isn't going to provide the kind of enduring and varied sandbox play people have said they want.

You would deny the trader the option to group separately from the All group? Presumably this is to increase the size of the herd that you want to cull.... (until of course the traders get bored and retire to single player online....)

 

[Gibbonici]

This (and the other replies) got me thinking - what if we smudged the boundaries between the groups a bit? I think I would be happy to be in a publicly visible solo group where you could hail me and request a rendezvous, but if you tried to force your way into my instance we would each fight NPCs in our own instance instead of fighting each other in a shared instance.

The frequency of NPC attacks will most likely be based on player data anyway, so technically I wouldn't be any more likely to be attacked. And having to request entry to an instance takes non-consensual PvP out of the equation, which should encourage a more hospitable atmosphere (and force rude people to hail then troll, which I can ignore easily enough). With those caveats, is there anything a lone wolf would miss in a publicly visible solo group?

What I'd miss from that set-up is tension. Sure, I'd be getting attacked by NPCs at various intervals, but there'll be none of that psychological tension when you spot another player far away and everything depends on figuring out what their intentions are. I wouldn't know if it was you on the edge of my scope or someone like FromHell, well not until the shooting started - or not.

Non-consensual PvP sounds intimidating (and it certainly can be), but it's always worth remembering that it's not compulsory. Maybe it is FromHell in that ship I've spotted, but maybe he's limping to the station for repairs, or running a mission on a tight timer. Maybe he's just on his way to join up with friends to "gank nubs" in another system. If neither party is up for it, it won't happen and I think there'll be enough going in ED for their to be plenty of reasons for people not going all kill-on-sight every single time.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

What I'd miss from that set-up is tension. Sure, I'd be getting attacked by NPCs at various intervals, but there'll be none of that psychological tension when you spot another player far away and everything depends on figuring out what their intentions are. I wouldn't know if it was you on the edge of my scope or someone like FromHell, well not until the shooting started - or not.

Wouldn't the other player's intentions be fairly obvious when they changed course to either keep a safe distance or line up for an attack? Or if you expect people to make up a story ("I'm a peaceful trader, let's swap stuff"), wouldn't you get the same tension when deciding whether to agree on a rendezvous point?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Non-consensual PvP sounds intimidating (and it certainly can be), but it's always worth remembering that it's not compulsory.

Not compulsory in the sense that you can enter solo-online / small private group? If not solo or grouped then non-consensual PvP will be compulsory if the attacker is close enough to you to mass lock your ship....

If neither party is up for it, it won't happen and I think there'll be enough going in ED for their to be plenty of reasons for people not going all kill-on-sight every single time.

However if one party is up for it, the other doesn't really have much say in the matter.

 

[jedt]

Ok sorry, my apologies. I sometimes assume malice.

I made an assumption that the REASON why the "majority want no specific support for guilds" is that MOST of the people who voted that have a problem with the effects that guilds will have on the game. Evidence could be given in form of what people wrote in this thread.

not really. its more about context. the traditional mmo has a distinct structure. xp/sp grinding to make levels for better gear/skills and so on. they also have roles... typically dps, tank and healer..... elite has none of that.

Now you could argue that people voted for other reasons:
You could argue that most just don't care. I would counter that those who are indifferent about the feature also wouldn't mind better support if it's worthwhile for others as long as it doesn't hurt them.

or you could argue that given the structure of ed clans are just not necessary

Or you could argue that they don't want the devs to spend time on it, but that is a cost/effect decision that only the developer can make.

that is just one, but not the only, conclusion. clans, in most mmo's, exist for end game content. end game content is not there to attract people to a game, though it can serve that purpose, it is there to keep people playing once they hit the level cap. no levels in ed. so no need for this 'feature'.

Or you can argue that they don't want the support for guilds to draw any potential buyers towards ED because they will want guilds or are not people they generally like.
Or that better support would exacerbate effects that guilds will have on their gameplay.

eh? sorry that really dosn't make great deal of sense.... in the context of this debate.

Now we don't know, the poll wasn't very specific. None of those reasons directly contradict the assumption that guilds are a problem I think.

no the poll was very specific..... do you want in game support for clans (i use clans to stand for guild, brotherhoods, federations, corporations and clans plus any other synonym. everyone knows the intent and i am by nature lazy.... clan is only 4 keystrokes)

But you CANNOT just say that my statement is "patently false".

yes i can... for the reason already given. the poll says nothing about peoples attitudes to externally formed clans... nothing at all. yet you claim it does. your assumption, by all rules of logic and the english language, is false.

It's not obvious why my assumption is false.

yes it is.... for reasons already given.

I don't dispute what the poll says, I only dispute the reasons and the proposed solution the 250 out of 44000 backers have voted for. I can't prove it but I don't see how it's that's that far of a stretch. But you have to make an argument why my assumption is false. You have made none.

again this dosn't make much sense... you dispute the reason i voted against in game support? how can you do that without knowing what the reason is? substitute the 'i' in the previous sentence for 'any of the people who voted that way' and explain to me how, rationally, you can dispute person x's reason without knowing what it is?

In any case, I could have just said: "I think external guilds will provide problems for the enjoyment of the game for me and many others with the current proposal for PVP". That would be only my opinion, but would you dispute that others feel the same? I don't really think it is a point of contention.

people will feel how they feel .... why would anyone dispute that?

i have already stated that i do not care if people form external guilds... its fine, i may even join one if i come across like minded people. by that i mean people who's view of the game i share.

 

[jedt]

Leaving aside the question of whether "guild" is a useful description of people that want to be part of a strong team, I'd like to ask a question of the people planning to be in the "all" group but not looking to join such a team: what are you looking for? Is it about meeting the greatest number of new people? Is it about one-on-one combat? Is it about watching life unfold before your eyes?

fair question..... it is about, ermmm not sure how to put this politely, immersion.

there ... i said it.

picture this.....

you have been exploring for a while... made a load of jumps and you are in uncharted space...... (in the background the stones are singing... it's so very lonely you're 2000 light years from home.....)

a new system .... yellow star, eight planets... two in the goldilocks zone, both are blue. then you notice a blip on your radar..... the comms crackle

'hey man, how you doin?'

.....

 

[Gibbonici]

Wouldn't the other player's intentions be fairly obvious when they changed course to either keep a safe distance or line up for an attack? Or if you expect people to make up a story ("I'm a peaceful trader, let's swap stuff"), wouldn't you get the same tension when deciding whether to agree on a rendezvous point?

Once they start approaching you, you can run or you can go cold, both of which bring their own tension and potential outcomes. Or you can stand and fight, pulling out some of the tricks you've learnt in previous fights and drawing on knowledge of the class of ship you're facing, and try to do enough damage to get the guy to break off. Or you could break off yourself after doing some damage and see what he does from there.

And yeah, if they hail you for a trade or to group up to help with a mission or whatever, that would definitely be tense until you know one way or another whether you can trust them.

And remember, attacking and killing other players isn't without consequence. Not only will your legal status change (if it isn't already at it's highest) and a bounty get issued, but you also lose rating unless you've declared an act of piracy, which also provides your opponent with the opportunity to surrender. This, along with repair costs and the possibility of the fight generating enough heat to draw the attention of other predatory players, there should be plenty of reasons to withdraw from fights.

Consequences do matter too. For example, early on in DayZ, if you killed a few other players you'd always spawn in as a bandit character, which meant that you'd be shot at on sight from then on (except possibly by other bandit players). It worked sort of like how the bounty system may work in ED - you kill enough people, you become a bigger target.

With that simple consequence, player interactions were much more complex than when the developer took the bandit skins out. Once the consequences were gone it became the free-for-all it's infamous for now.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And remember, attacking and killing other players isn't without consequence. Not only will your legal status change (if it isn't already at it's highest) and a bounty get issued, but you also lose rating unless you've declared an act of piracy, which also provides your opponent with the opportunity to surrender.

Legal status and bounty would only change / be applied in the event that the attack was witnessed by another ship (that goes on to survive the encounter).

 

[Gibbonici]

However if one party is up for it, the other doesn't really have much say in the matter.

Well if you're in the All Group, you're going to get attacked from time to time. No way out of that. But not everyone you meet is going to attack you, and not everyone who attacks you is going to force it to the death; not only when you get the upper hand (which *is* going to happen sometimes ) but also for the reasons in my reply to Andrew Sayers above.

From everything that's been said and written by Frontier about combat, it doesn't sound like it's going to be a "boom headshot!" kind of deal. If they pull it off as planned there'll be a lot moment-to-moment decision making about whether (and how!) to break off combat.

 

[Gibbonici]

Legal status and bounty would only change / be applied in the event that the attack was witnessed by another ship (that goes on to survive the encounter).

Presumably including NPC ships as well as player ships. Another ship coming into sensor range would be another reason for attackers to break off combat - and another point of tension.

If you get attacked you could even try to draw the fight towards a ship that you saw before it started.

 

[Cody]

That third ship (the witness) might not be within sensor range of both combatants.

 

[Gibbonici]

That third ship (the witness) might not be within sensor range of both combatants.

Then put it in range if you're losing the fight.

There could be an awful lot of depth to the combat in ED. Hopefully it'll be as much about brains as pew pew lazors!


EDIT: Just realised this is all way off topic. Whoops!

 

[Cody]

There could be an awful lot of depth to the combat in ED. Hopefully it'll be as much about brains as pew pew lazors!

<nods>