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

[MarcusKross]

Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired but oh well, I reply in a like manner...

If you had read Mr Fangs previous suggestions you'll have seen I always like to give my feedback. Sorry you can't handle my dislike of EVE, maybe you should just ignore my opinion so as to revel in your own. Maybe the other poster should of considered how he posted his suggestion the first and second time as well as not trying to change the focus of the topic half way through.

Sorry to hear you cannot post your suggestions, despite what you may think, I would be interested in reading them... well I would of before the above post... Now, with all due respect, I wish the fleas of a thousand camels to infest your armpits.

To be honest i can't care less about your dislike of EVE, sole reason being that i have never played it extensively and have no interest in it, but don't expect from people to just roll over and accept the vitriol you bring to the forums with your assumptions of commanders trying to promote inclusion of social tools is somewhat trying to go for a way to reenact and enable the workings of an other player group in a different game.

Unless a person is an absolute dork i never ignore them or the things they say because of the simple reason that i need gather as much information as possible to form my own ideas and possibly share with the community regardless of my favorite playstyle. I plan to be here for the long haul and do my part in being the community too. Sorry but you are not getting rid of me that easy. Unlike you i can deal with conflicting ideas the real question is can you?

Your concern about my posts getting deleted is noted but since its sincerity is in question, has been quickly discarded. May you get spoonfed Wasabi by your loved one.

Thanks.

 

[DHMeyer]

Good ideas. Quite complex, but plenty of interesting stuff in there. As for the details, I guess Frontier would be able to create something coherent. They would probably draw a lot from the current Power Play mechanics here.
As for DB's attitude towards "guilds"... I've played online games whilst belonging to player organisations and whilst not belonging to player organisations. And I haven't yet seen a game where not belonging to a "guild" would break the game for a solo player. Typically it's a matter of personal preference. If the gameplay is PVP only, then yes, probably playing without organisation backing you makes things difficult or non-playable. But in case of Elite, PVE plays a very important role in the game, so I don't see players organising themselves to be a problem.

Additionally, players do that anyway. It's not a problem to organise a TeamSpeak server, website / forums, play together and share common goals. So if Frontier are afraid players could organise themselves and be a threat to other players, I'm afraid they are a bit out of touch here. However, providing ingame systems for that they gain a lot in terms of player driven content and that is not to be underestimated.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

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...

Excellent post Kristov. I'm of the same opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again : I bought into this game because it's Elite - a game I grew up with many years ago. I object to guilds/clans/syndicates being added to this game, as it would make it "not-Elite". I respect the fact that Mr Fang would like to see his ideas implemented, and that he even keeps coming back to this game, however, ideas such as this would change the whole character and ethos of the game into something I would not like to see.

My first and last post on this thread.

Regards o7

 

[sic]

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.

but one can roleplay a 5C in PP either as solo or as a group.. because those options are there.. it really fits the game play as a pilot in a spaceship..
That old woman slaver or another older dude who points its finger wont be able to kick you..

Exclusive guild control actually eleminates votes, 5C, etc. which is actually an easy (to control) version of PP?
it's like you dont want to deal with overfortify, overundermine, wrong votes, etc etc.. because you dont want "rigid" mechanics... therefore (cmiiw) you choose grindy mechanics, where it fails when your guildies are lazy ..

now about benefit.. there could be some that could hurt a non guild player.. one example maybe like price hike for sell and buy..

and also that them content, it's really exclusive like to Guild-only-content.. because you wont you let non-guildie players play your missions (or play it wrong) and maybe sabotage your banks (if Guild can be sabotaged)..
Then, say if you go that way, Elite will become Elite: Travian in space (ref to web browser Travian Game) or that other game we mentioned a lot..



there's a lot more.. but man, I'm bad at writinig stuff..


But you know dev hinted a healing beam gun next update,.. so I guess dev starting to support group play.. let's see what else they'll do for group later on
Man, I hope that beam thing can be used for self heal by solo playa.. lol

 

[Talarin]

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.

Two points on this (and similar comments from others):

Who are you to speak on David Braben's behalf (or anyone else's)? I challenge you to produce a definitive statement by anyone in FD that says they don't want player groups in game. It's very easy to argue that the direction of travel (development) is indeed in the direction of player groups and I've never seen anything which suggests that they're off the table.

The only comment I've ever seen regarding guilds/clans is that he doesn't like the ossification that can become associated with them - and if a suitable suggestion is put forward that bypasses or addresses that then why should it not be discussed?

That said - regarding Gluttony's suggestion: Sorry, but I think this goes too far. Exclusive missions, treasuries, systematic payments from the group in return for activity, in-built rankings, system ownership, perks when compared to non-affiliated players. These are the epitome of those legitimate concerns and too easily could lead to that ossification whereby players feel that they have to join such a group in order to "get ahead".

There's places for some of these things in the game, but I think a more suitable home for them is in the expansion of minor faction mechanics and/or powerplay - that way solo players get to enjoy them too...

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Your concern about my posts getting deleted is noted but since its sincerity is in question

It's only questioned by yourself in this case, once again however you have shown your inability to allow others to even have an opinion and express it. Gluttony Fang posted his suggestion and I like others expressed our opinion, you then come directly after me and continue to try and put down my right to have an opinion, making claims that I am foisting them on others without a shred of proof despite your claims you can handle other peoples ideas.

I am glad you intend to be here for the long term but I suggest you adjust your attitude and start to act like you claim, with the ability to allow others to have there say without you lambasting them repeatedly.

Now before you decide to say anything else about my family I suggest we end this as you have already made this far to personal for my liking.

EDIT: Very sorry to everyone for posting this but I will not sit back and have the people I care for bought into this. By all means insult me but it stops there.

 

[Roybe]

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.

It's kind of like those couples that are really bad for each other but no matter how bad they are they can't be separated.

Ex. Bonnie and Clyde, Evey and V, Kyle and Laura (Very Bad Things).

 

[GluttonyFang]

That said - regarding Gluttony's suggestion: Sorry, but I think this goes too far. Exclusive missions, treasuries, systematic payments from the group in return for activity, in-built rankings, system ownership, perks when compared to non-affiliated players. These are the epitome of those legitimate concerns and too easily could lead to that ossification whereby players feel that they have to join such a group in order to "get ahead".

There's places for some of these things in the game, but I think a more suitable home for them is in the expansion of minor faction mechanics and/or powerplay - that way solo players get to enjoy them too...

I think I've explained this thoroughly through the first and second page of this thread, that single players are getting the better deal out of this system from syndicate players and if anything have an upper-hand.

Do explain to me what part of the proposal you think will cause players to feel "forced " in joining a syndicate to "get ahead (what does it mean? Elite isn't a competition)."

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[GluttonyFang]

but one can roleplay a 5C in PP either as solo or as a group.. because those options are there.. it really fits the game play as a pilot in a spaceship..
That old woman slaver or another older dude who points its finger wont be able to kick you..

Again, I don't think you understand the amount of detriment the extent of 5C has been able to do to PP compared to the positive it brings to PP. Not to mention that a good portion of this 5C is done unintentionally or haphazardly due to merit grind. This is something I want to avoid.

Exclusive guild control actually eleminates votes, 5C, etc. which is actually an easy (to control) version of PP?
it's like you dont want to deal with overfortify, overundermine, wrong votes, etc etc.. because you dont want "rigid" mechanics... therefore (cmiiw) you choose grindy mechanics, where it fails when your guildies are lazy ..

People can still spy on syndicates by joining enemy syndicates, which I believe is a more subtle and proper form of 5C.

now about benefit.. there could be some that could hurt a non guild player.. one example maybe like price hike for sell and buy..

I don't think I understand, what do you mean "price hike for see and buy?"

and also that them content, it's really exclusive like to Guild-only-content.. because you wont you let non-guildie players play your missions (or play it wrong) and maybe sabotage your banks (if Guild can be sabotaged)..
Then, say if you go that way, Elite will become Elite: Travian in space (ref to web browser Travian Game) or that other game we mentioned a lot..

I still don't understand this, the syndicate mission is nothing special but giving objective to regular game play mechanic. Not to mention outsourcing missions are available to lone wolf Cmdrs that are lucrative. The entire design of the proposal aims to avoid turning Elite into another typical MMO.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Excellent post Kristov. I'm of the same opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again : I bought into this game because it's Elite - a game I grew up with many years ago. I object to guilds/clans/syndicates being added to this game, as it would make it "not-Elite". I respect the fact that Mr Fang would like to see his ideas implemented, and that he even keeps coming back to this game, however, ideas such as this would change the whole character and ethos of the game into something I would not like to see.

My first and last post on this thread.

Regards o7

Thank you for the feedback, regardless.

 

[Kristov]

Two points on this (and similar comments from others):

Who are you to speak on David Braben's behalf (or anyone else's)? I challenge you to produce a definitive statement by anyone in FD that says they don't want player groups in game. It's very easy to argue that the direction of travel (development) is indeed in the direction of player groups and I've never seen anything which suggests that they're off the table.

The only comment I've ever seen regarding guilds/clans is that he doesn't like the ossification that can become associated with them - and if a suitable suggestion is put forward that bypasses or addresses that then why should it not be discussed?

That said - regarding Gluttony's suggestion: Sorry, but I think this goes too far. Exclusive missions, treasuries, systematic payments from the group in return for activity, in-built rankings, system ownership, perks when compared to non-affiliated players. These are the epitome of those legitimate concerns and too easily could lead to that ossification whereby players feel that they have to join such a group in order to "get ahead".

There's places for some of these things in the game, but I think a more suitable home for them is in the expansion of minor faction mechanics and/or powerplay - that way solo players get to enjoy them too...

You just need to watch any of the numerous videos where David directly addresses the question of guilds in Elite: Dangerous. I'm not speaking for him, the man has been quite clear on this thoughts concerning guilds in his game.

Yes, FD wants to see us playing as a community, but that's not the same as a guild. They allow us to have player groups who get to pick a home system and get an NPC minor faction named after our group, a minor faction we have no control over, get nothing from, and aren't actually affiliated with. Wings are limited to 4, not because of hardware/software/networking issues but because they don't want us go form larger groups, simple as that. FD wants us to all play nicely together, I covered all this already, it's been clear since the KS how David and FD feel on this subject. I'm not saying anything new or speaking out of turn or speaking for someone, their statements and actions are on the record and have been for years now.

I happen to disagree with David and FD on this subject and I think Gluttony's proposal is brilliant, a few details to work out, but otherwise, I'm all for it.

I also happen to know it won't happen in Elite: Dangerous.

 

[Talarin]

I think I've explained this thoroughly through the first and second page of this thread, that single players are getting the better deal out of this system from syndicate players and if anything have an upper-hand.

Do explain to me what part of the proposal you think will cause players to feel "forced " in joining a syndicate to "get ahead (what does it mean? Elite isn't a competition)."

Thanks for the feedback.

You can broadly categorise my objections in two comments:

- it ringfences fairly large elements of functionality for those who want to take part in group-play.
- it overly rewards those who take part in that play without introducing balancing negatives (and I know what you're saying about Elite not being a competition but people will naturally gravitate to what's perceived as the most rewarding path).

 

[GluttonyFang]

- it ringfences fairly large elements of functionality for those who want to take part in group-play.

Again, I have explained that the missions are not special by any means and the only "true exclusive" is system claiming which provides benefit to single players the most, if anything, since it doesn't require any effort from lone wolf players.

- it overly rewards those who take part in that play without introducing balancing negatives (and I know what you're saying about Elite not being a competition but people will naturally gravitate to what's perceived as the most rewarding path).

Again, please read thoroughly of my explanation, the upkeep needs to be managed, a substantial amount of effort needs to be put forth, thus in no way is it the "most rewarding path." There is also outsourcing missions for lone player to partake in.

The most "reward path" right now is Robigo, and this system cannot trump that profit by any means except for the CEOs for large syndicates or well-organized syndicates. The effort and reward balance here is quite obvious, I believe.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

You just need to watch any of the numerous videos where David directly addresses the question of guilds in Elite: Dangerous. I'm not speaking for him, the man has been quite clear on this thoughts concerning guilds in his game.

Yes, FD wants to see us playing as a community, but that's not the same as a guild. They allow us to have player groups who get to pick a home system and get an NPC minor faction named after our group, a minor faction we have no control over, get nothing from, and aren't actually affiliated with. Wings are limited to 4, not because of hardware/software/networking issues but because they don't want us go form larger groups, simple as that. FD wants us to all play nicely together, I covered all this already, it's been clear since the KS how David and FD feel on this subject. I'm not saying anything new or speaking out of turn or speaking for someone, their statements and actions are on the record and have been for years now.

I happen to disagree with David and FD on this subject and I think Gluttony's proposal is brilliant, a few details to work out, but otherwise, I'm all for it.

I also happen to know it won't happen in Elite: Dangerous.

Question:


"I'm going to act as The Voice Of The Internet and be Twitch again. And someone asks: Will there be a Corporation, Guild, or Clan System, within Elite: Dangerous?"

David Braben:


"Right there is the, sort of friend's alliance, ehm but at least to start with we've not got Guilds and Clans. Ehm, I think what we don't want is this... this... the whole game to become ossified very quickly, where the... y'know you have to join one or the other to have any fun gameplay."


"I do like... essentially it's the game of the freedom of the individual, the ability to just go out and do your own thing."


"Ehm, y'know the... guilds can very easily become almost like Mafiosi saying 'Don't travel here or we'll kill you'."


"So, um, I think it's something we will look at and are looking at, ehm, but friends groups which are very much more constrained, I think are great, but then when it gets much beyond that it becomes a bit... it doesn't feel right."

That is a transcription I made from David Braben's presentation at EGX 2014....

[video=youtube;dJzizYUEF9c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c[/video]​

[SUB](and yes I know I said I wouldn't post here again - but, y'know...)[/SUB]

 

[Talarin]

Good transcript (interested parties should skip to 19:48 in the video) - but that's specifically what I'm referring to in my comment to Kristov. That isn't a definitive "no" (at least as I interpret it). I think there's room there for a guild/clan/alliance system to be implemented provided that the ossification he refers to can be avoided (and I presume that such development isn't too onerous - that depends on the precise vision being sought).

You may interpret it differently and neither of us can say we're right without further comment from the dev team. So unless there's further comment out there that I'm not aware of, I'm afraid my position on the topic hasn't changed - nor has my objection to players with a clear personal preference to maintain the status-quo to shout down people making suggestions in this area through appeals to authority.

Edit: Sorry - just to be clear. I respect the position that "Elite shouldn't have this functionality, because that's not what the game is about", even if I don't agree with it. You (Genar-Hofoen and Kristov) and I have discussed this on many times on more than a few threads. I believe that there are ways to address this topic which do fit into the ethos of the game to the benefit of all - including (bizarrely) solo/lone players.

 

[Axel Deathrage]

As stated above, I think we need to find a compromise.

But I have a feeling that FD has something in mind, they just won't say anything yet..

 

[Robert Maynard]

As stated above, I think we need to find a compromise.

But I have a feeling that FD has something in mind, they just won't say anything yet..

Frontier do not *need* to find a compromise at all - it's their game and they can resist any and all attempts to change the game - if they choose to do so.

That said, with the "Rise to Power" competition in the near future, it would seem that they are going down a slightly different path....

 

[Axel Deathrage]

Frontier do not *need* to find a compromise at all....

I wasn't talking about Frontier, I was talking about us. If we, the community, can find a compromise where everyone is happy about this idea (or atleast majority), I can see higher chances for Frontier to notice it.

But yeah it appears Frontier has already something in mind so speculating is useless so I'll just be quiet.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I wasn't talking about Frontier, I was talking about us. If we, the community, can find a compromise where everyone is happy about this idea (or atleast majority), I can see higher chances for Frontier to notice it.

But yeah it appears Frontier has already something in mind so speculating is useless so I'll just be quiet.

For a compromise position to be agreed, the first point of agreement must be that there is a need for change in the first place - that, unfortunately, is a decision with a binary outcome.

The forums do not require members to be owners of the game to register and post. The population of the forums is a small proportion of the number of copies of the game sold. Taking these both together, any proposal from the forum community neither represents the community as a whole nor can be said to be supported by players only.

This becomes more of an issue when any consideration is proposed to be gven to a majority decision - what constitutes a majority in this case?

 

[Axel Deathrage]

what constitutes a majority in this case?

Make a poll about it? /s

Anyway, that's not for me to decide and I'm not really interested in this topic anymore to provide you a nice answer. It's all up to FD anyway so I don't see any reason to bother.

Edit: inb4 "if you're not interested why you talk"

I voice my opinion because I want it to be heard. But I can't provide working solutions, that's where my knowledge stops. I can just provide ideas for solutions, but that's it.