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

[sic]

I mean, this is one of the problems for me, too much stuff relies on third party software.

Even ingame chat for player groups/minor factions/syndicates/etc etc would be much better. Basic social tools is what most people are asking, and some of them are already in game. A "group chat" would add to it and give players a sense of belonging, which is fun for social players like me.

but you can feel 'belong' to pp and do some social stuff for/around it right?

What I mean is, pp is just the same.. it's just that you dont own the powers.. if to own something a cmdr must be in a guild, then those who are not in a guild never own anything..

so it's a disadvantage for non guild player..



[update]

and we're living both Elite and REal life, so no amount of in game tools can stop one to have reddit sub, forums and all those 3rd party communication, organization, spreadsheets tools..

so why not just do pp plus that? so dev can work on something else..

 

[Axel Deathrage]

but you can feel 'belong' to pp and do some social stuff for/around it right?

What I mean is, pp is just the same.. it's just that you dont own the powers.. if to own something a cmdr must be in a guild, then those who are not in a guild never own anything..

so it's a disadvantage for non guild player..



[update]

and we're living both Elite and REal life, so no amount of in game tools can stop one to have reddit sub, forums and all those 3rd party communication, organization, spreadsheets tools..

so why not just do pp plus that? so dev can work on something else..

I'd rather have an independent bounty hunters club than do missions for picture that has a man pointing finger at me or a woman with blue hair.

Also players wouldn't own minor faction, they pledge to it.

There wouldn't be any disadvantage to "non guild" player who doesn't care about social aspects. The only thing people who pledge to minor faction would get is a chat and maybe a minor faction name would show up when they're scanned by other players. (Just like NPC's have!) I don't understand how this would give an advantage over someone who is playing solo. (Btw, the chat would work even if you would go to solo play.)

Even PP could have somekind of ingame chat. That would help players to coordinate better and they wouldn't have to alt+tab constantly to check some third party app.

But I have this feeling that whatever I say, it won't change your mind, so I won't even bother anymore.

 

[Sentenza]

Now, so you can't say I just say no to anything that's what I would do:

Allow players to actually register with an in-game faction. From here, all normal BGS rules apply. No special rules or actions or exclusive content.
So, what do you gain for that? Simple - you are a shareholder of your faction. You get a share of the money generated from missions, plus IF you manage to be a controlling faction you get a share of all money generated in the economy.

Yes this sounds like PP but with a key difference - to make money you need other people to interact with you. Be nice to everyone and they will carry your missions and trade with you, making you rich. Be an a-hole and everyone will avoid you like the plague, and you will go bankrupt. You can choose the path for your faction and it will have positive or negative consequences. And no one else is excluded from anything - yes you can make money from being in a faction, but you can make money any other way. You play corporate empire, we play independent professionals, everyone is happy!

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Even PP could have somekind of ingame chat. That would help players to coordinate better and they wouldn't have to alt+tab constantly to check some third party app.

But I have this feeling that whatever I say, it won't change your mind, so I won't even bother anymore.

Game Lore. This is a thing that gets so easily shoved to one side when ever talk of in game chat channels crops up. Why should your desire to type to people in other systems be considered when the games lore prohibits it? Also a microphone is so cheap to buy and far more efficient for communicating with than a keyboard and as I mentioned in my reply - a chat-server costs money and uses bandwidth, who pays for this?

 

[Axel Deathrage]

Game Lore. This is a thing that gets so easily shoved to one side when ever talk of in game chat channels crops up. Why should your desire to type to people in other systems be considered when the games lore prohibits it? Also a microphone is so cheap to buy and far more efficient for communicating with than a keyboard and as I mentioned in my reply - a chat-server costs money and uses bandwidth, who pays for this?

But I can talk in a wing chat to other people in other systems? And it doesn't cost money if it's peer2peer, just like the other social aspects of the game.

 

[CMDR_Vaelel]

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.

I dont know i feel like its very much a group game and the way its done i enjoy alot (kinda like pre guild EQ days). if we were to get some sort of guild/fleet setup i would be disappointed there are so many parts that provide unique experience that would be lost, but at the same time all those guys that dont think they are part of a group due to the fact they dont have a flag to fly. Most things in Elite you cant do alone, so i have a hard time seeing how that aspect of the game isnt here already. ED is far more group oriented than most games out there, its truly amazing how they did that. i hope they keep up the great work.

 

[avow555]

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

The topic has been flogged to death or maybe you're new ☺

And just to contribute to the topic I like the lone wolf style of play we have, no gold sellers, chat channels full of spam, or any of the other annoying guild style tripe that just about every other MMO is full of.
It's refreshing to have this style of gameplay.

What is not refreshing is how many times the subject gets trolled up, surely these can be merged with the other ones.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What is not refreshing is how many times the subject gets trolled up, surely these can be merged with the other ones.

We don't merge threads any more - to do so would be to incur the wrath of BrettC.

I expect that these threads will continue until such times as Guilds are implemented (or the game ceases to be) - if that is never then they will continue ad infinitum.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

But I can talk in a wing chat to other people in other systems? And it doesn't cost money if it's peer2peer, just like the other social aspects of the game.

Except when the chat system has to cope with checking group membership, allow chat over various systems and handle this for thousands of player at a time along with some form of moderation to ensure the established PEGI rating and all of a sudden basic P2P chat goes out the window. Not to mention the legal requirement to store all chat logs in a central location.

Somethings you can do in a simple way but to do it justice, do it right or not at all.

The topic has been flogged to death or maybe you're new ☺

And just to contribute to the topic I like the lone wolf style of play we have, no gold sellers, chat channels full of spam, or any of the other annoying guild style tripe that just about every other MMO is full of.
It's refreshing to have this style of gameplay.

What is not refreshing is how many times the subject gets trolled up, surely these can be merged with the other ones.

You made the choice to come into the thread, it's not like Mr Fang hid the content behind a click bait title. Exercise your right to ignore as opposed to impinging on our right to debate a well laid out suggestion.

Your comment also shows you've not fully read Mr. Fangs article or you would not be creating drama by mentioning gold sellers as nothing in his suggestion would allow for such people to come into Elite.

 

[GluttonyFang]

It effectively grants reign on the game to syndicates only. Section VII, Syndicate Influence: syndicates can claim systems and fight other syndicates for control. As it is stated, syndicates only. Only syndicates can fight for control - if an "undesirable" syndicate claims a system, free, independent players can't do anything. I can't help wondering if this is actually just a subtle way to make another Wolfberg Liberation Campaign impossible

Conclusion: NO.

But this influence has no control over independent players, if anything the perks and outsourcing missions help independent commanders. Not to mention that it is completely separate from the BGS system as I've mentioned.

Thus the game is for everyone, still.

Therefore I don't think you fully understand what I'm proposing here. I have explained several possible points where single players might be disadvantaged in my conversation in the first and second page of this thread, I think I provided a reasonable explanation.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Given that Minor Factions already compete for control over systems, how would a syndicate gain any form of control over a system that a Minor Faction already controlled?

The syndicate influence system is separate from the BGS, lore wise in parallel to Power Play, it's like developing factions within an existing power (which can certainly happen if we think about it logically, as we have seen players organizing the Powers in Power Play. Or it can be thought of as sponsors of the minor faction fighting over one another.

 

[GluttonyFang]

The topic has been flogged to death or maybe you're new ☺

And just to contribute to the topic I like the lone wolf style of play we have, no gold sellers, chat channels full of spam, or any of the other annoying guild style tripe that just about every other MMO is full of.
It's refreshing to have this style of gameplay.

What is not refreshing is how many times the subject gets trolled up, surely these can be merged with the other ones.

I think you missed the part about me saying that this is not a typical guild system implementation.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Wait, didn't I see this very very thread before? Is this the same proposal as last time, Gluttony?

Nah, they look alike but are different.

 

[GluttonyFang]

This is similar to powerplay, no?
Why not just group up and do all those social organization guilidie whatever to support one of the powers?
PP has missions, ranks, salaries, systems, perks etc.. right?

and you can spend even more efforts to, you know, make it nice..
maybe create a website of your group, forums, reddit sub, raidchat/ts chan,..
even more you can play spreadsheet to track your members and their contributions, attendance, items, upgrades, credits, etc..

I don't know how experienced you are with Power Play, but the system I propose is precisely there to avoid the same pitfall as Power Play (Rigid mechanics, lack of player control over their own Power, nothing can be done about 5C).

I belong to a player group that has all the fancy third party thing, but I want to universalize it and incorporate it into the game where players can naturally group up with one another.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Treasury
If any can hold commodities then everyone can – not just a guild or a guild member… Every CMDR.

Commodities cannot be withdrawn to become private property, I think that really isn't disadvantaging anyone.

Syndicate influence
This is layering another layer on top of other layers that are already clouded to a lot of players! In short I would like to see what Frontier have planned for groups transitioning into factions before we discuss having another layer of politics on top.
I do however think that placing restrictions on these player groups can be dangerous but this all goes back to what you consider a group. I mentioned the <25 players for a tiny group, why should this group be limited in their scope? Why should a larger group get anything other than what they can earn/achieve. A small group of 6 players have the right to play how they want, not be limited because they chose to only have friends in the group.

I don't think it's a limit, it's to correctly gauge the amount of effort necessary to do anything productive in a syndicate. It's to balance itself against larger syndicates. If anything the size segmentation is to put syndicates of all sizes onto relatively leveled playing field. Nothing is restricted in smaller syndicate other than the amount of perks they can specialize in, which is reasonable and can be switched at any given time.

Next up is perk for guild members? Why?
What merits these players getting anything more for the same actions as a lone wolf – very unappealing suggestion that should never be considered.

Except that perk effect cannot be applied until a system has been claimed, and when applied, it is applied universally in the system that lone wolf Cmdrs benefit from. The only way to bar perk effects from players is to bar it against an enemy syndicate, it cannot be done against lone wolf Cmdrs.

Conclusion
You need to ensure that a guild member gets only what a normal player would get – being part of a guild in no way entitles anyone to get more or we may as well just rename this Elite:Guilds R Best.

Indeed, that is precisely what I aim for, which I think I am doing with this proposal.

My personal feeling is you’ve made some good points but this is written from a man who has clearly been through many games while in a guild.

Good intuition.

And as such you may have lost touch with the huge number of players that are not and do not want to be in a guild/group/clan/fleet/club, as soon as you start to give the groups extra features/rewards people start to get angry and others just leave, driving funds away from the game.

Indeed, thus why I wrote the proposal in the way I did.

Now the one thing I have yet to read in all of the text you wrote is why this should be considered? I don’t buy the social aspect – we both know that guilds have existed fine in games without the need for these features, my own time in various games has shown me that most features tend not to get used anywhere near as much as the cries for them suggest – all work and no reward is not exactly what a ‘for profits’ organisation does.

Because this adds to game play on all fronts. This feature is suppose to give those who want a sense of control and belonging the proper mechanics while adding something to everyone's style of play. (From syndicates to outsourcing missions, and perk system that only comes into effect when a system is claimed and has system wide effect that cannot be denied to lone wolf Cmdrs)

 

[GluttonyFang]

Now, so you can't say I just say no to anything that's what I would do:

Allow players to actually register with an in-game faction. From here, all normal BGS rules apply. No special rules or actions or exclusive content.
So, what do you gain for that? Simple - you are a shareholder of your faction. You get a share of the money generated from missions, plus IF you manage to be a controlling faction you get a share of all money generated in the economy.

Yes this sounds like PP but with a key difference - to make money you need other people to interact with you. Be nice to everyone and they will carry your missions and trade with you, making you rich. Be an a-hole and everyone will avoid you like the plague, and you will go bankrupt. You can choose the path for your faction and it will have positive or negative consequences. And no one else is excluded from anything - yes you can make money from being in a faction, but you can make money any other way. You play corporate empire, we play independent professionals, everyone is happy!

The reason why I didn't want anything to do with minor faction is that it falls back into the sense of lack of control, which a lot of players seek. It cannot be found in the BGS system nor in Power Play.

There is no exclusive content in a strict sense considering the syndicate missions are working from the existing mechanics, if anything restrict players to doing certain activity when involved. The influence system provide perk universally to lone wolf Cmdrs no matter what, and can only come into effect in claimed system, thus for lone wolf Cmdrs, it's gain without the effort a syndicate puts forth to earn it.

 

[GluttonyFang]

1) Not sure we need a new set of mechanics - would it not be better to morph PP or player minor factions?

Right now PP and minor faction has a relation where minor faction becomes a Power if it gets large enough. However, as I have described, minor faction does not give player much control at all, Power Play is even more so with its mechanics.

Thus, we need something separate from the minor faction/PP system for players to have a sense of control and belonging without disturbing the game play of others.

3) Can we not just use the "minor faction" space on PCs to give the guild name, I really hate seeing

 or [Ctrl] in Cmdrs names. Just me being picky I expect.[/QUOTE]

Well, some player groups already have their own name put in as a minor faction. Giving tags is to prevent them from flooding FD with group requests.

[QUOTE="smiths121, post: 3768608, member: 18030"]

5) I am wondering how this would play out with the BGS.[/QUOTE]

BGS is separate from this mechanic, think of syndicate as sponsors fighting for influence on top of the minor faction in charge but doesn't affect the BGS.

[QUOTE="smiths121, post: 3768608, member: 18030"]
5a) PP does not directly interact with the BGS, but offered the ability to tank controlling faction influence in control systems until 1.4. By using contracts as some sort of meta-mission (or encourage trading etc) system I think there will be an affect, actually a large affect on the BGS in systems targeted by one or more guilds.
2b) Given killing a player that is clean in system count as murder for  the controlling factions - I can see 2 guilds at war being able to mess up the influence of a number of systems during a war.
2c) Not saying a or b is a bad thing! Just noting that the lone wolf in open will need to be aware of guild activity in the area they operate in.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm sure the lone wolf Cmdr has as much to worry as he flies anywhere, since syndicate doesn't give people right to violate the law (outside of anarchy).

[QUOTE="smiths121, post: 3768608, member: 18030"]
Given I am not a fan of guilds in ED , but I quite like what player minor factions have brought to the game (other than how they were originally injected into the game), I really liked the proposal, and would probably like to see the Contract mechanism stolen for PP somehow -would probably encourage me to pledge.

I am just not convinced we need a third separate mechanism to measure ownership of systems.

Simon[/QUOTE]

Thank you for reading and your feedback.

 

[Kristov]

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.

Dude, you've done and once again shown me that you are one hell of an intelligent man and quite passionate about this game, that's a great write up, sorry, I really should have said that in my first post, it was late though, sorry man.

I think it's a brilliant proposal, for another game however, this one, no, simple as that. David doesn't WANT guilds, orgs, groups, whatever we want to name them, he doesn't want them, and he's gone over his reasoning behind that many times. Me, I disagree with him on that, but like you, that's because I've seen the great things they bring to games, even in EvE they do it, but we're not the ones who get to make the call, David is, and he's pretty clear on this subject, repeatedly.

Yes, FD pushes COMMUNITY, but that's not the same thing as guilds/orgs/whatever, as FD is wanting EVERYONE to participate in the community events they hold, not just some of us, and they want us to ALL play nice with each other...which is a great ideal, but a silly as hell concept in an MMO with PvP allowed, a bit naive really, but it's what they want to see, a big happy family playing the game together without BEING together...odd concept but fitting for the actual premise David has for this game.

Again, I'm all for guilds and systems to support them, I love them and I've seen the great things they can bring to a game, hells we've seen it HOW many times in Elite: Dangerous already? The Code and their antics bringing so many people together, including the always fun Hutton Truckers vs The Code(I'll get you one of these times Gluttony!), the Fuel Rats, the Distant Worlds, Buckyball Racers, so many more, all of whom have given us some really great times, true emergent content. But, again, David doesn't like the bad things that can also result, and we've seen that as well in this game too, certain groups who kill anyone they find in their chosen home system for example, EXACTLY the thing David has mentioned multiple times as being one of his biggest problems with guilds.

That's why I play MWO and SC, guilds are supported in those, they designed/are designing the game with them as part of the game play, while E: D has been designed specifically to negate them, just look at Wings, 4 ships, when they could easily have allowed 4x that and still allowed plenty of others to be in the same instance(default 32 basis, we know it can get much higher), but they purposely restricted it to 4. NPCs show up in wings of at least 12 that I've personally encountered, possibly larger, but we are limited to 4. FD purposely preclude guilds in the game design parameters, they actively take steps to prevent them, so...

Really an awesome proposal there Gluttony, I think it would be awesome, but not in this game...

 

[Robert Maynard]

The syndicate influence system is separate from the BGS, lore wise in parallel to Power Play, it's like developing factions within an existing power (which can certainly happen if we think about it logically, as we have seen players organizing the Powers in Power Play. Or it can be thought of as sponsors of the minor faction fighting over one another.

I get that your proposal relies on syndicates being disconnected from the BGS - however I would not expect Frontier to implement them that way (if they did implement them) - just as player groups sponsor Minor Factions (i.e. do not control them). Rather than create a fourth layer of control (in addition to Minor Factions, Powers and Major Factions), I would expect that enhanced player group functionality would be implemented by Frontier inside the existing framework.

 

[The Dutch]

although it sounds great on paper, I think it is too complicated to actually implement into this game.

I replied on another thread about Factions, guilds etc etc... and I will post the same reply here... The ED Minor Faction system is unique and we should cherrish (correct spelling???) it. My proposition is that the Minor Faction stays as it is, but it will be splitt... The political part will be part of the BGS and controlled by this. The fleet part (or however you call it) will be controlled by the players who founded the Minor Faction. They will be able to accept or decline new members in the same way they control who becomes friends and who not... the yellow or blue enveloppe in the comHUD will light up and the wingcommander can choose either to accept or decline.

In their friendslist (again comHUD) there will also be an Faction list with all players in it. Here he can choose to boot players.

Increasing or decreasing Faction influence will also stay the same as this is part of the BGS and like I said before, it is unique...

Players are part of the faction and will show their membership when being scanned, the same as any other NPC...

In time things can be expanded by several other things. Like rich Factions will be able to finance bigger ships for NPC security forces, thus fortifying their systems.
They can also finance counter intelligence wich will make it impossible, or decrease, to influence the system from private groups/solo play. Make a CG out of it where a Faction needs funds/materials to create an intelligence center.

Again, I love your idea. But I really think it is too complex....