Guilds in Elite Dangerous

[Varrag]

Yes that's it, I have a deep, pathological hatred of all organised gaming and I need therapy. Now THAT is argument ad hominem, for those who were unsure.

Lol, nice return... but I still don't understand why the introduction of clans drove you off from WoT, and what made you feel to be a cannon fodder for clan players. I was an alpha tester in WoT too, btw, and overall I think I've played just as much in solo or platoons as in the clans, due to my busy schedule - and I've never felt discriminated in any way.

I am asking you this because you have this rather strong "guilds are evil" attitude which spans across at least two games familiar to both you and me, yet we have totally different opinions on them.

 

[Sandmann]

But he didn't say "No guilds".

Well no, but when asked if there'll be guilds he did say "it doesn't feel right" and "they're like mafiosi" and "the game is about the freedom of the individual" and on other occasions "one man in a spaceship". So while he didn't say directly "no guilds", he's given every reason to expect that there'll be no guilds, and no reason to suspect that there will be.

He also didn't say "no improvement to social tools"

Noone's talking about "improvement to social tools".

or "Sandmann is the final arbiter of what we'll develop in the game".

Noone said I was. I'm not arbitting anything, I'm simply quoting directly. You however are using the argument fallacy "appeal to emotion/ridicule" here to attempt to avoid directly addressing facts.

You're reading too much of your own desires into DB's statement.

Incorrect. I'm quoting directly, I'm not reading ANYTHING into it. On the contrary, the folks who selectively quote David as saying "not at the start" and "we're looking into it" and attempt to deduce from those that we will have guilds, while ignoring all the other information ARE reading quite a bit into his words, as well as taking a select few of them out of context.

If you're so convinced that FD's development path of the game will preclude the tools that are being asked for, why not stop polluting the thread with the continual insistence that it just won't happen?

Argument fallacy: appeal to ridicule again. Also simply turned around with "If you're so convinced that it WILL include these tools, stop polluting" etc. What you're REALLY saying here is "please stop arguing against what I want in ways that I can't respond to logically".

You reckon only about a third of players have any interest in expanding the sort of functionality we're trying to discuss. But I've also read estimates that anywhere from a third to a half of players are exclusively in solo (to be clear, I am not sure of the basis of that number - but it doesn't feel unreasonable). Combining the two numbers suggests that the majority of players who play Elite as a multiplayer game want better social tools... (It's a bit rough and ready, but I'm sure you see where I'm going with this...)

I'm using EVERY poll on the topic that's been carried out on these forums since alpha as a basis for my statement. What's your evidence? "Someone said something that supports what I want"?

A far better use of time might be to describe what you might consider acceptable in terms of the things being asked? A clear and succinct request was made a couple of pages back. What did you think of that? What issues did you have with it?

You've already derided me for being "the arbiter of all things" (which is nothing more than a construction of your own imagination) and now you want me to decide what parts of the the guild proposal are or are not ok? Make up your mind.

Speaking for myself, I completely agree with DB's caution. I don't want Eve-style control of areas, or an atmosphere which is oppressive for lone-wolf players. But the social tools in a multiplayer game suck.

Goodo. I don't think anyone was discussing social tools until you started attacking me. I still have no interest in discussing them.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, nice return... but I still don't understand why the introduction of clans drove you off from WoT, and what made you feel to be a cannon fodder for clan players. I was an alpha tester in WoT too, btw, and overall I think I've played just as much in solo or platoons as in the clans, due to my busy schedule - and I've never felt discriminated in any way.

I am asking you this because you have this rather strong "guilds are evil" attitude which spans across at least two games familiar to both you and me, yet we have totally different opinions on them.

Guilds are great in the right game, but they're not right in ALL games. This isn't the right game for guilds, it's a game about individuals and introducing large group mechanics would completely change it (in the same way that introducing clans to WOT changed that game). As for discussing WOT, it's been a long time (several years) since the beta and release, but I'm quite happy to discuss what little I remember of it with you in another thread to avoid derailing this one, if you like

 

[_Flin_]

Goodo. I don't think anyone was discussing social tools until you started attacking me. I still have no interest in discussing them.

Well, I do.

What I'd like to have in the game (I prefer using the word "Squadron"):
- A squadron roster with ranks. So multiple persons could invite/kick people into/from the squadron
- A marker for Squadron Members on the radar. Maybe purple.
- A squadron private group where every squadron member automatically joins.
- A squadron chat.

And that... is pretty much all I want for a squadron.

AEDC is a Squadron with over 500 entries / about 150 active pilots.
Managing the friends-lists or the private trader group we set up is a chore.
Otherwise we have no possibilities to act together, recognize each other, fly together.
And it is simply way too much work to handle something as easy as a group of players. That is time lost either playing the game, or working on some more interesting works like creating/updating Influence Trackers, Mission Trackers, Action Trackers, Exploration Spreadsheets, Alliance Managing Websites, getting diplomatic contacts to other groups etc., all of which we do as well.

 

[Sandmann]

Well, I do.

What I'd like to have in the game (I prefer using the word "Squadron"):
- A squadron roster with ranks. So multiple persons could invite/kick people into/from the squadron
- A marker for Squadron Members on the radar. Maybe purple.
- A squadron private group where every squadron member automatically joins.
- A squadron chat.

And that... is pretty much all I want for a squadron.

AEDC is a Squadron with over 500 entries / about 150 active pilots.
Managing the friends-lists or the private trader group we set up is a chore.
Otherwise we have no possibilities to act together, recognize each other, fly together.
And it is simply way too much work to handle something as easy as a group of players. That is time lost either playing the game, or working on some more interesting works like creating/updating Influence Trackers, Mission Trackers, Action Trackers, Exploration Spreadsheets, Alliance Managing Websites, getting diplomatic contacts to other groups etc., all of which we do as well.

And you need all those to be in game instead of something you manage yourself because...?

 

[_Flin_]

And you need all those to be in game instead of something you manage yourself because...?

Well I dont. And I never said so.

What I need ingame is a way to add and remove members to a guild and add them to a private group.
And to do so with a few different people.

Instead of having to befriend people, then search for them in an always growing friend's list, and then invite them.
And having the private group stagnate as long as I am not online. Or on vacation.

That is what I need in-game. As I said time and time again.

AFAIK it is not possible to set up a private group for elite dangerous OUTSIDE of the game...

 

[Ghostickles]

I find it interesting how when you poll people outside of these forums the percentages flip. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vj...FONi2hvEZGx78o/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm

<snip>

I also find it amusing that many naysayers are naive enough to think that if the systems don't exist to support them players won't create groups larger than a wing. They're wrong. Braben is wrong in that quote that was bandied about. Not building these systems won't stop player organizations from existing; it will make them more exclusive and harder to deal with because there will be no way of regulating them so to speak.

I know the original Elite came out in 1984. Multiplayer wasn't really a thing back then, so a lot of the original backers (who are zealously active on these boards) want more or less the same thing that you had back then. The problem is that this is 2015, and this game will not compete if it doesn't cater to the natural multiplayer progression of things. I'm not talking about raids or some other "guild-specific content". It is lacking the ability for players to form tribes, which is human nature. If this game doesn't do that it will be relegated to the waste bin sooner rather than later and some other game (maybe Star Citizen?) will take the market that FD alienated and run with it. Then the offline mode players will get their wish, but maybe that's what the naysayers (and their laughably weak arguments) want to begin with?

Thanks for sharing the poll, was this a Reddit thing?

 

[Asp Explorer]

And you need all those to be in game instead of something you manage yourself because...?

Simply put - they need legitimacy in-game to justify their actions. Diplomacy between groups? Whatever for? Nobody has any sovereign power, all "diplomacy" here would add up to is who is going to get seal-clubbed next

 

[Cano]

Thanks for sharing the poll, was this a Reddit thing?

Yes. Someone on Reddit was kind enough to create a poll.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Thanks for sharing the poll, was this a Reddit thing?

and nearly 50% of those people voted for GUILD SPECIFIC CONTENT, which other people in this thread are promising would never happen here.................

Which further goes to prove my point, it is the people who register on this forum and who bother to understand more about what this game is trying to be who I hope are more considered when it comes to game balance.

it also further goes to support the comments made by others about slippery slope etc, and the fact that some people on here are using those polls to suggest how Elite should be going, ultimately gives us some insight to their possible true motives imo.

You (not you personally) cant (or shouldnt) say We do not want guild specific content or structured guilds like other games have and we want nothing like Eve, we just want social tools so we can all play as friends etc and then link to a poll which clearly is made of a large percentage of people who want elite to be EXACTLY like eve but in cockpits.

 

[_Flin_]

Simply put - they need legitimacy in-game to justify their actions. Diplomacy between groups? Whatever for? Nobody has any sovereign power, all "diplomacy" here would add up to is who is going to get seal-clubbed next

Whenever I post something on this thread, i get
- distorted
- accused
- pushed into some apocalyptic gameworld end of days corner

We are an Alliance group. There are many Alliance groups out there. We try to work together as soon as we see vital Alliance ingame interests (e.g. some pirates trying to take over the Lave cluster) compromised.

If some seals take over key systems of the Alliance, then we will happily club them, that much is correct. But then they aren't seals, are they? More shark-like.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Yes. Someone on Reddit was kind enough to create a poll.

That had no security measures, IP locks, and was multi-voted on by many people to boost some scores in their favour. The result is invalid. We need another poll (sorry mods) to achieve this, and don't lock it as a duplicate. It's an entirely legitimate question and new data is required.

And Flin - nobody can take over systems. You are not in the Alliance. Seal-clubbing is still seal clubbing no matter how you dress it up.

 

[_Flin_]

and nearly 50% of those people voted for GUILD SPECIFIC CONTENT, which other people in this thread are promising would never happen here.................

There is already multiplayer specific content: It is called the "Background Simulation".
And there will be more multiplayer specific content: It is called "Local Community Goals" (see the Kwatee goal).

it also further goes to support the comments made by others about slippery slope etc, and the fact that some people on here are using those polls to suggest how Elite should be going, ultimately gives us some insight to their possible true motives imo.

Actually the only ones who argue with polls are the ones who point to the ealry 2013 poll or to the "guilds in spacestations as minor factions" poll and say "see, noone around here wants guilds".

 

[_Flin_]

And Flin - nobody can take over systems. You are not in the Alliance. Seal-clubbing is still seal clubbing no matter how you dress it up.

Maybe not in your game.
In my game we already took over about 12 systems, and they get more each week.

 

[Ghostickles]

Awesome, sometimes there is a bit of a 'zealous' vibe here, love of the game and all, so its good to read a sampling of the external population.
Plus it wasn't Steam.
Well, FD aren't stupid, they'll figure it out and move forward one way or another. It would be nice if we had a well written, unbiased poll with well worded options like that one posted here, without a closing date, or at least until an official, definitive word comes out from the Developer. Maybe even posted by a Moderator, to show they aren't bad guys in this, just doing volunteer work akin to herding preschoolers as best they can. (myself included, im sure).

 

[Asp Explorer]

Maybe not in your game.
In my game we already took over about 12 systems, and they get more each week.

So who are the controlling factions in these systems? Please, name them. I can guarantee they are NPC groups and not a player-run group. You don't exist in-game, your actions simply nudge digits in a database. You can certainly dominate an instance, but you cannot hold territory, and thinking otherwise in the face of the facts is simply worrying.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

y "see, noone around here wants guilds".

If you are referring to me, then you are putting words in my mouth. I am not saying "no one here wants guilds", clearly some do.

All I am saying is that I, ME, do not want guilds, and I was certainly under the impression when buying this game that this would not be guildcentric. I am also saying that I personally do not feel that guilds fit into the lone wolf, you against the universe vibe that I always wanted from a new elite game...... I also feel that wings support was meant to be the "compromise" which still shafts the absolute loner in space somewhat, but was not too bad, whilst allowing groups of friends to play together.

I do feel however that the majority of KSer backers probably are more likely to not want Elite to change too much from the earlier games (chances are the people most invested in the game and its lore will be the ones who have been here for the long haul). That is not to say that they are more important, but If I was to make a poll and 100,000 farmville players said elite should become free to play and run in a browser, and have special power ups for killing 4 ships in a row, that does not mean that is the direction the game should go.

A lot of players do not give an ass about elites lore or past game they just wanna blow stuff up, and it would be a shame if those players had too much influence on the direction FD choose to go imo.
generally when a game sequel comes out, at its core it is faithful to the games which came before. That is all i want from ED.

I have no problem with another poll being made and replacing the one in this thread - ideally by a mod with no horse in this race so it can hopefully not be clearly worded in a biased way. I would be interested to see the result.

but either way, the poll which matters most should be one made by people who OWN the game. Not sure if that is possible.

 

[_Flin_]

So who are the controlling factions in these systems? Please, name them. I can guarantee they are NPC groups and not a player-run group. You don't exist in-game, your actions simply nudge digits in a database. You can certainly dominate an instance, but you cannot hold territory, and thinking otherwise in the face of the facts is simply worrying.

And you aren't a space pilot.

Just an owner of an immaterial copyrighted user license obtained for a client-server entertainment software with an Amazon cloud based backend that lets you pretend to be a space pilot.

I prefer to pretend to be not only a space pilot, but a member of the Alliance Elite Diplomatic Corps, doing the dirty work for the Alliance since 3300.

So no, we don't "own" the systems we turn.

But you don't "own" your spaceships, either. As you can probably read up in the EULA.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Nice - I enjoy a good reductio ad absurdum with my morning coffee

 

[Armour]

It seems like everyone is cherry picking their own stats to make this out to be some kind of democratic process, when it doesn't matter what the polls say, because FD have repeatedly declared that they are making the game they want to play, not one designed by a mob. Unless those in favour of guilds are going to pick up their IDEs and start coding their own version of this game with all the features they demand, they are wasting their time.

 

[Davyjonesbooty]

So who are the controlling factions in these systems? Please, name them. I can guarantee they are NPC groups and not a player-run group. You don't exist in-game, your actions simply nudge digits in a database. You can certainly dominate an instance, but you cannot hold territory, and thinking otherwise in the face of the facts is simply worrying.

Mate, the NPC's ain't gonna make an expansion by themselves. Sure, we're just nudging numbers one way or the other but when push comes to shove, the side with more PCs will win the system. It doesn't matter if there's 1 PC or 250 PCs from different community groups (Merchant Marines, East India Trade Company, CODE, etc), it all comes down to the PCs helping out.

This game is great for making you feel like an insignificant pawn. But more often than not it feels bloody amazing to team up with several dozen/hundred other pawns to take over a small, insignificant square on the chessboard that is the Milky Way.

Hell, I can tell you right now about a Federation covert op to flip a system that's working amazingly. But I won't, because it's all hush-hush. What I can say is that we've got dozens of players teaming up for this. All we're asking for is a way to organise ourselves better. Teamspeak3 and external forums are great, but it's still terrible for in-game immersion and all that.

Don't bother with giving us our own factions, let us team up with NPC factions like Independent Erevate Free and help them get stations. We don't want EVE 2.0, we just want this game to reflect at least some of the multiplayer aspects of many online games today. Otherwise it may not last the year (especially not with SC's multiplayer experience looming around the corner).