Possible Introduction of Guild/Fleet/Corp Systems into Elite: Dangerous

[GluttonyFang]

Check out my proposals on providing incentive for Power Play in Open Mode here.

Check out my proposals on Crime/Punishment, Profession Balance, and Balancing between Open/Private/Solo Modes here.

Check out my proposals on enriching CQC here.

"Gluttony wants to bring guilds into ED?! *Gasps*"

Well, not exactly, it's an adaptation, but people love wall of text, right?

Here's my two hours worth effort of trying to make guilds work without starting a fire (no guarantee). Credential wise I think I have enough experience to provide some useful insights.

Incoming serious wall of text. (Got bored after an exam)

Please read through the whole thing and try to search for keywords before jumping to conclusions. And if people want to insult me, the best/funniest one I've seen so far on this forum is "Furry Osama Wana-be," please top that if you wish to do so, so we don't waste each other's time. Constructive suggestions and criticisms on the other hand, throw them under this thread, I'm praying that Sandro and his adorable shoulder pet stumbles upon this.

"Bu...but the wall of text... too stronk... tl;dr version please? "

tl;dr:

... Well... I tried... so... let's try it another way...

Spoiler

 

[Kristov]

Interesting but...no. E: D is about you, your ship and the story of your travels in that ship, that's it, something David has mentioned more than a few times and that's the allure for many.

Mind you, I'm in a group in E: D, but it's more of a social thing than anything else. I'm the XO of another group that's active in MWO and will be active in SC, those are games built with groups in mind, unlike E: D which is built around the exact opposite. I'm aware of that, was aware of it before I started playing the game, so to expect anything different, and to keep asking for that aspect to be changed...sorry, no.

 

[MarcusKross]

E: D is about you, your ship and the story of your travels in that ship, that's it, something David has mentioned more than a few times and that's the allure for many.

There is absolutely nothing stopping or will stop people doing just that. I think many people understand DB wrong.

Community goals, wings, powerplay, implementation of player minor factions... i don't know about you but it seems to me that amongst other things, Frontier wants their game to be a social one too. All the fear and rejection built around the templates, ideas of social play and tools are moot and quite honestly downright absurd. Now frontier might take ideas from some other place or design their own system ( which my money is on ) but i bet improvements on group play will be coming in some form or an other.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Any chance a Mod can delete this thread /yawn

Nope, but i can delete your post for not contributing to the discussion

 

[GluttonyFang]

Interesting but...no. E: D is about you, your ship and the story of your travels in that ship, that's it, something David has mentioned more than a few times and that's the allure for many.

Mind you, I'm in a group in E: D, but it's more of a social thing than anything else. I'm the XO of another group that's active in MWO and will be active in SC, those are games built with groups in mind, unlike E: D which is built around the exact opposite. I'm aware of that, was aware of it before I started playing the game, so to expect anything different, and to keep asking for that aspect to be changed...sorry, no.

Can you point out which part of the proposal doesn't respect the idea of lone commanders?

I tried my best to accommodate both play styles.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well, i've dang gone and moderated in this thread, so can't really get involved.

But i'll just say this. Gluttony, i don't always agree with you, but i really appreciate your love of this game and how you'd love to see it become so much more, its great. I understand as well, you want to detail your ideas. It stops people who want to discuss in detail having to ask lots of questions that you have answered. You can always then simply tell them to actually read your tome.

But, for the love of all that is holy, at least provide an executive summary in the main post, so we can quickly see if there is something here that hasn't been proposed before, what specifically is different here from the million other threads on the topic.

Cheers.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Well, i've dang gone and moderated in this thread, so can't really get involved.

But i'll just say this. Gluttony, i don't always agree with you, but i really appreciate your love of this game and how you'd love to see it become so much more, its great. I understand as well, you want to detail your ideas. It stops people who want to discuss in detail having to ask lots of questions that you have answered. You can always then simply tell them to actually read your tome.

But, for the love of all that is holy, at least provide an executive summary in the main post, so we can quickly see if there is something here that hasn't been proposed before, what specifically is different here from the million other threads on the topic.

Cheers.

Haha, I really don't know what my relation is with this game, I hate it so much at times, but I always find myself coming back, I guess I fell in love without knowing it and because I love it so much I find it easy to get passionate about it, it's a rarity in my life to get excited or emotionally-driven, so I suppose there's something virtual that connect me to this game.

As for the summary, I have a table of content listed in the document, I think it'll give people a general idea. The main point, if I have to place it, would be keeping the effect of guild/clans to minimum while allowing it to be an enjoyable feature that adds to all aspects of the game, including all modes and all play styles to different extents. It's an attempt to add without interfering much with all that is present.

 

[Charles Erika von Hackbeil]

@ Agony_Aunt:

+1 for Masha!




@ Gluttony Fang:

I really really respect the amount of work you seem to put into your thinking and writing, but in this case I can´t support your ideas. First, I personally wouldn´t like to see clans in game, since I believe it would change the game characteristics massively. Secondly, and this is by far the bigger problem, it would be an almost impossible act for FD to put clan-mechanics into an existing game that has no such mechanics atm. They should stay focused on their ideas. But I would love to see your contributions on stuff thats part of the game already. I think your analysis is quite accurate, it can even help FD to get a better picture if something is working or not.

o7

 

[DocLooshkin]

You can always then simply tell them to actually read your tome.

That's a "tome"? Jesus, my posts must be really terrifying. Or really boring and ignored by default. Or both.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

That's a "tome"? Jesus, my posts must be really terrifying. Or really boring and ignored by default. Or both.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

I have not (yet) read through the whole of the linked text, so I cannot offer a valid opinion, but I will say that what I have read so far is considered and reasonable. Repped for the thought and work that you have put into it (even if, after I have read it, I disagree with it).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

@ Agony_Aunt:

+1 for Masha!

Heh, thanks. Its really funny. You don't even need to understand Russian. *cough* Erm... and now we return you to your regular program....

 

[Charles Erika von Hackbeil]

Heh, thanks. Its really funny. You don't even need to understand Russian. *cough* Erm... and now we return you to your regular program....

Mistress of the Carebears

 

[Yaffle]

Can you point out which part of the proposal doesn't respect the idea of lone commanders?

I tried my best to accommodate both play styles.

This bit (emphasis added):

Syndicate mission is a syndicate exclusive mission where it sends players to complete certain task which will in turn generate credits that directly transfer to syndicate treasury.

Excludes single player commanders from game content.

Perks remove content from single players. Syndicates getting fee income from systems disadvantages single players.

So, the whole thing is against single players.

If this was to happen, and it's not for me, I would also add cabinet responsibility. One of your syndicate members does something bad then all of the syndicate is wanted instantly, but cannot remove that member until the end of their 'contract' or seven days, whichever is the longer. As long as that member is part of the syndicate then all are wanted. This is to force you to police your members, something the so-called pirate groups have singularly failed to do so far.

In short this proposal is - lots of bonuses for being in a syndicate, no downside of being in a syndicate. No bonuses for being a lone wolf, lots of downside for being a lone wolf. Ergo it is favouring the syndicate playstyle.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Excludes single player commanders from game content.

Perks remove content from single players. Syndicates getting fee income from systems disadvantages single players.

So, the whole thing is against single players.

Actually, the missions aren't "special (literally doing the same task in game but merely the game telling the syndicate player how many to do in what time frame)," and anything gained from the mission contribute only to the syndicate treasury, which no one can withdraw from and make it become private property under any circumstance.

Perks can only be implemented if there is a claimed system and syndicate decides to apply the perk to the system. The perk's effect cannot be restricted to syndicate member only, it's system wide (save syndicates in war with the syndicate in control/the one that implemented the perk). If anything single player is getting an upper-hand and enjoying perk without "working" for it.

Syndicates' taxation on the system doesn't tax anything extra from single players, not to mention that the tax collected goes directly to syndicate treasury, which cannot become private property.

If this was to happen, and it's not for me, I would also add cabinet responsibility. One of your syndicate members does something bad then all of the syndicate is wanted instantly, but cannot remove that member until the end of their 'contract' or seven days, whichever is the longer. As long as that member is part of the syndicate then all are wanted. This is to force you to police your members, something the so-called pirate groups have singularly failed to do so far.

True, a punishment system can be put in place, I'll think about that and add an article to the existing features, good catch.

In short this proposal is - lots of bonuses for being in a syndicate, no downside of being in a syndicate. No bonuses for being a lone wolf, lots of downside for being a lone wolf. Ergo it is favouring the syndicate playstyle.

Actually, the down side of being in a syndicate is possible warring with other syndicate, the effort necessary to maintain a syndicate (due to the contract system and all kinds of upkeep). Lone wolf benefits from outsourcing missions, and perks without "working" for them.

Thus I believe the conclusion should be that both lone wolf and syndicate playstyles are catered to.

Let me know if there's anything else that might not be clear, or is questionable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why should syndicate membership be hidden from players not in syndicates? This proposal would seem to be designed to disadvantage non-syndicated players.

Single players have no ability to store commodities off-ship (to stop stockpiling in wait for particular missions to appear)- to allow syndicates to do so would seem to be a departure from this restriction.

Regarding system influence - why depart from the existing Minor Faction mechanic? Limiting the number of syndicates contesting a system to two would seem to favour larger syndicates over smaller ones, i.e. the largest syndicate would (probably) always "win" the contested system.

The syndicate perks proposal favours large syndicates - a built in disadvantage to small player groups - presumably to encourage large player groups to form.

 

[Yaffle]

My crime idea has the massive fifth-column hole in it, which would need to be thought through by the way, but some downsides other than pew-pew are needed.

Mr M pointed out the other issues with commodity storage.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Why should syndicate membership be hidden from players not in syndicates? This proposal would seem to be designed to disadvantage non-syndicated players.

It's to maintain immersion, if people request to be knowledgeable of player's syndicates, make it a toggle feature, then. There is no intention of disadvantaging non-syndicate players.

Single players have no ability to store commodities off-ship (to stop stockpiling in wait for particular missions to appear)- to allow syndicates to do so would seem to be a departure from this restriction.

Except that commodity being stocked cannot be withdrew as private property, no matter what circumstance.

Regarding system influence - why depart from the existing Minor Faction mechanic? Limiting the number of syndicates contesting a system to two would seem to favour larger syndicates over smaller ones, i.e. the largest syndicate would (probably) always "win" the contested system.

Rather, I made it clear that I wish to respect the current BGS system and keep it in place, but making syndicate influence a separate mechanic to avoid conflict. The two can mingle if complex development is to take place, but right now it's not necessary.

I've explicitly described the the size of a syndicate will determine the amount necessary to reach the daily influence limit, the larger the syndicate, the more difficult it is to reach the goal. Not to mention large syndicates have even more up-keeps to maintain, making them fight on many fronts.

The syndicate perks proposal favours large syndicates - a built in disadvantage to small player groups - presumably to encourage large player groups to form.

The perk system does allow large syndicates to focus on more perks than smaller ones, however, the perks mean nothing if the large syndicate cannot claim a system. Also that the upkeep for multiple perks in a system will be substantial compared to single/double perk focused syndicates (large or small). Additionally, it is up to the syndicate to decide how many perks to apply in a system, always applying the maximum amount of perks in every claimed system will throw large syndicates into bankruptcy in no time.

 

[GluttonyFang]

My crime idea has the massive fifth-column hole in it, which would need to be thought through by the way, but some downsides other than pew-pew are needed.

Yes, I am taking that into consideration.

Mr M pointed out the other issues with commodity storage.

And I have replied that like credits, it's cannot become private property, and cannot be withdrawn. It can only be used for syndicate upkeep and syndicate-related activity.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Oh this is going to be a most interesting train journey to work... A wall of ideas, well presented, that we've only had to deal with twice this week so far!

Into the abyss I go...