Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Cadoc]

Played EVE for YEARS without joining a corp, had A LOT of fun doing it : this is just <rubbish>

I don't believe there is such a thing as "playing a game wrong", but playing EVE without joining a corp is as close as you may possibly get. Beyond your personal experience, surely you can see the value of newbie-friendly corps in educating and helping new players. EVE University was the only reason why I managed to get into the game, and Elite is poorer for not having something similar.

 

[Katie Byrne]

Ah Mobius players.

Different to the deep and emergent NPC mining... How does that go again? "bang bang, pew pew, your dead. next battle please." (Also you're)

Or perhaps the "trade trade, ching ching, more credits, next route please."

Or better yet the exploration aspect "Wake Wake, Scan Scan, Sell Data. next trip please."

Heavens, moving this game to any direction that might give it a smidgen of depth, connection or immersion, really upsets a lot of people.

I drive a car and I feel very strongly that people who have motorbikes, shouldn't have access to any new changes that might make their motorbiking experienced better!

(I know she has blocked me because of forum griefing but hey)

Majinvash

The Voice of Open.. sorry.. Eve

Lol i was gonna say, anyone who thinks Arma isnt complex just hasn't actually played Arma lol.

One does not simply "play" arma haha.

EDIT

I'd love to hear the logical arguments AGAINST clan/corp/guild/whatever type groups being implemented

 

[Cowboy Bats]

It's a really sad situation that the old folk are holding Elite Dangerous back as a shallow game. Even when being told that all those things will be optional and avoidable they still abhor it and want to stop other players from enjoying those things in Elite.

Elite Dangerous: Blaze your Old-Fans Trail.

Obviously there needs to be a ministry of gaming with appropriate enforcement agencies to make sure that no one over the age of 29 plays games.

 

[kilvenny]

Mid fifties oldie here, I voted option one for guilds. Solo mode and groups is there to "protect" the individual player. Yes, I have played MMO's.

 

[This Forum Sucks]

The challenge to the longevity of the game is finding out what causes players who left to do so.

This is marketing guru nonsense. FD should make the game they want to make first and foremost, not everything has to be designed by committee to appeal to the largest group of people possible - that sort of thinking is exactly what led to there being almost no games like this for twenty years.

Yep mostly the old folk are scared of massively social and massively multiplayer features so they want to prevent the rest of the players (roughly 50%) from being able to build, own and manage structures, stations, guilds etc.

It's a really sad situation that the old folk are holding Elite Dangerous back as a shallow game. Even when being told that all those things will be optional and avoidable they still abhor it and want to stop other players from enjoying those things in Elite.

Well first and foremost the devs themselves have said "no, never" to player owned structures/control of systems but secondly, this trend of "othering" anyone who disagrees with your opinion is hardly conducive to a reasonable debate, is it? I'm sure there are players of all ages who would rather the game was just as accessible to everyone, rather than having parts of it fenced off for big groups.

This sort of gameplay with player-driven elements will struggle to exist as it already does due to how the networking system works. It's not feasible.

Which is why so many people are so openly hostile to the idea because if something like that was added, the next debate will certainly be "Solo/group modes have to go". If you could seperate the argument for better social tools from the argument for owning stations, controlling systems and having player wars, I suspect there'd be a lot less opposition to the first idea.

It doesn't matter how many of the 1,000,000 or so copies are sold. In any kind of election you never get 100% voter turn out. Does it make those results any less 'valid'? I think not. The fact is that people can vote. If they choose not to and the result is not to their liking then they only have themselves to blame.

Hah. This is possibly the most disingenuous argument I've seen on these forums and that's saying something. 392 votes from 1,000,000 players is a 0.000392% turnout - I think anyone would struggle to claim that as a legitimate result in even the most flimsy of democracies. And while yes, people who don't vote in government elections have only themselves to blame for not liking the result that's not really a valid comparison here for three main reasons:

1. An election is known to be the mechanism by which change is enacted, a forum poll is not
2. An election is usually made known to the populace, this forum poll is only visible to those visiting this particular subforum
3. The development of this game isn't a democracy

 

[Chris Majere]

Obviously there needs to be a ministry of gaming with appropriate enforcement agencies to make sure that no one over the age of 29 plays games.

Well I'm 46 and am all for player guilds, owning stations, systems and all. This old vs young thing has nothing to do with poll results imo. It has more to do with everyone's psychological profiles, how social life is viewed and experienced in the real world, and people's level of tolerance thoward uncertainty.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Well I'm 46 and am all for player guilds, owning stations, systems and all. This old vs young thing has nothing to do with poll results imo. It has more to do with everyone's psychological profiles, how social life is viewed and experienced in the real world, and people's level of tolerance thoward uncertainty.

Don't quite know how to tell you this, but I was being sarcastic. I was poking fun at Cosmo's "old guys" lament. It's not the first time that it's come up, but the attitude towards older players is very telling. You'd think you could get liver spots just being the same instance as a pensioner or something.

 

[Chris Majere]

Don't quite know how to tell you this, but I was being sarcastic. I was poking fun at Cosmo's "old guys" lament. It's not the first time that it's come up, but the attitude towards older players is very telling. You'd think you could get liver spots just being the same instance as a pensioner or something.

Yes I know you were being sarcastic m8. I was also kinda "refering" to Cosmo's post about this old vs young thing which I do not agree with (but I do agree with him on the validity of player guilds). I was not poking at you dont worry.

 

[This Forum Sucks]

Don't quite know how to tell you this, but I was being sarcastic. I was poking fun at Cosmo's "old guys" lament. It's not the first time that it's come up, but the attitude towards older players is very telling. You'd think you could get liver spots just being the same instance as a pensioner or something.

I doubt it's actually anything against old people, it's just basic politics to try and create disparaging shorthand for your opponents. There are valid arguments for not wanting player sovereignty systems in game so it's much easier to just reframe the debate so you can claim that people are actually opposed to basic chat systems because they're old and stuck in their ways - that gets you two wins because it makes your opponents look unreasonable (or anti-social, in this case) and makes people less likely to voice support for them in case they get labelled an old fogey or somesuch.

An added side effect is that your opponent has to spend a lot of time explaining their position over and over so they can't debate your arguments properly. It's divisive and tiresome.

 

[Garbarrage]

This is marketing guru nonsense. FD should make the game they want to make first and foremost, not everything has to be designed by committee to appeal to the largest group of people possible - that sort of thinking is exactly what led to there being almost no games like this for twenty years.

Yes... we agree. If you'd read the rest of my post and not quoted a section out of context you would have seen it.

The challenge to the longevity of the game is finding out what causes players who left to do so. Although, with current traffic levels, I don't think ED needs to worry about longevity as long as they keep up with the same level of development.

As long as FD maintain enough of a playerbase by doing their own thing, they have that luxury. When things go wrong however, a company needs to find out what went wrong and why, or pack it in. I have never asserted that I believe FD are in that position.

However, I think a clan/guild system, even FD's own version, would greatly benefit the community. I'd be happy with a way of doing it that doesn't require FD support to set it up, some ingame communication/messaging, and doesn't necessarily tie you to a minor faction to create a group identity.

Well first and foremost the devs themselves have said "no, never" to player owned structures/control of systems but secondly, this trend of "othering" anyone who disagrees with your opinion is hardly conducive to a reasonable debate, is it? I'm sure there are players of all ages who would rather the game was just as accessible to everyone, rather than having parts of it fenced off for big groups.


Which is why so many people are so openly hostile to the idea because if something like that was added, the next debate will certainly be "Solo/group modes have to go". If you could seperate the argument for better social tools from the argument for owning stations, controlling systems and having player wars, I suspect there'd be a lot less opposition to the first idea.

I agree completely thar the debate about groups/clans, and player-owned starports need to be separated. If players were less inclined to trying to grab a mile, by taking the first inch and using the traction to further alterior agendas, all these slippery slop fallacies would probably stop popping up.

The fact remains that there is no onus on FD yo give any more than they feel is right. Which is why I'd be very surprised if there isn't some better group support before long.

The best thing now I feel, would if players could try to work out exactly what would be good for the game in a group context only, and quit expecting the game to be rewritten from the ground up, on the back of implementing some basic social tools.

 

[CMDR DarkxXPhoenixXx]

There aren't really that many participants in the threads. The threads pop up regularly because Frontier have not introduced Guilds and the pro-Guild lobby raises the topic again in the hope that it will gain traction (this time).

Can't you see why? Being in player group I can tell you why. We can't look at our roster all the time especially when it has 500+ on it and growing everyday. It would be nice to have an in-game tag for fellow members. In game clan recognition has already occurred now they just need to take it a step further. I'm not asking for anything game shattering here.

 

[Soliluna]

Yes... we agree. If you'd read the rest of my post and not quoted a section out of context you would have seen it.

As long as FD maintain enough of a playerbase by doing their own thing, they have that luxury. When things go wrong however, a company needs to find out what went wrong and why, or pack it in. I have never asserted that I believe FD are in that position.

However, I think a clan/guild system, even FD's own version, would greatly benefit the community. I'd be happy with a way of doing it that doesn't require FD support to set it up, some ingame communication/messaging, and doesn't necessarily tie you to a minor faction to create a group identity.

I agree completely thar the debate about groups/clans, and player-owned starports need to be separated. If players were less inclined to trying to grab a mile, by taking the first inch and using the traction to further alterior agendas, all these slippery slop fallacies would probably stop popping up.

The fact remains that there is no onus on FD yo give any more than they feel is right. Which is why I'd be very surprised if there isn't some better group support before long.

The best thing now I feel, would if players could try to work out exactly what would be good for the game in a group context only, and quit expecting the game to be rewritten from the ground up, on the back of implementing some basic social tools.

Actually most of what I have read and watched have said that they would like to include player owned structures/bases just not on the scale of star ports and outposts. Personal bases in asteroids and personally owned shops or offices in star ports. .

The absence of modern communication facilities and group organisation is peculiar but I think it's simply FD considering it really low priority compared to other features. Elite is quite barebones in it's gameplay, it's very simplistic. I think most games after a couple of years of development are - and they very rarely worry about the communication facilities before this. If you look at WoW's early guild tools they were bad, very limited (better than Elite's) but very limited. And that's from a game that was in development for quite a few years before hand. It took a long while before decent rank control systems were introduced with permission flags to control who had permission to invite players, kick players, set messages of the day etc. I think it was the last patch of the first major expansion where they finally introduced guild banks so that players in guilds could share storage - the game had been released for 3 years at that point.

 

[Reaper99]

No thanks here either. I hate clan stuff. I don't mind winging up with buddies but pirate clans and such - bleurgghhh. Just a way of legalising griefing.

There are already player groups and factions...not clan so to speak...and piracy does not need to mean griefing...piracy is a role only within the game...npc pirates don't bother most people ...they kill em get bounty...truckers not sure..run maybe?...yes some players act like murderous griefers...but that doesn't mean they get to say they are pirates...those folks that play up the pirate role kind of get pretty creative in their parts....it can be entertaining...and a lot less violent than you may think...

there are already groups that do pirating...you just don't have a guild tab in game...but ts and other forms of comms make it easy to stay intouch with each other...I am not saying clan/guilds should be a thing...just stating that it isn't fair to cliché a griefer with upstanding pirates...there is something a bit skewed with that but you get the drift...and no I am not a pirate...I prefer blowing things up not stealing...so I bounty hunt. pirates are kinda my bread and butter lol...

Fly safe commanders.

 

[Garbarrage]

Actually most of what I have read and watched have said that they would like to include player owned structures/bases just not on the scale of star ports and outposts. Personal bases in asteroids and personally owned shops or offices in star ports. .

The absence of modern communication facilities and group organisation is peculiar but I think it's simply FD considering it really low priority compared to other features. Elite is quite barebones in it's gameplay, it's very simplistic. I think most games after a couple of years of development are - and they very rarely worry about the communication facilities before this. If you look at WoW's early guild tools they were bad, very limited (better than Elite's) but very limited. And that's from a game that was in development for quite a few years before hand. It took a long while before decent rank control systems were introduced with permission flags to control who had permission to invite players, kick players, set messages of the day etc. I think it was the last patch of the first major expansion where they finally introduced guild banks so that players in guilds could share storage - the game had been released for 3 years at that point.

I'd like to see player owned offices when first person mode is introduced. However, that could be over a year away yet. Also, as these offices or HQs would be in NPC controlled starports, and similar versions could be made available to all players, including solo/group players, I don't imagine there would be much grounds for anyone to object.

Right now, even though clans and player owned facilities are often asked for together, they don't depend on each other, making them completely separate issues. Most of the reasonable objections to better player group/clan support are actually objections to group territorial control. Which is something that cannot happen in this game anyway, due to the separate modes.

There has been a hint in the group thread, that the process is going to be steam-lined for registering player groups "soon(ish)". It would seem like a good opportunity to add some of these features I'm the same vague timescale.

Either way, if the players who wanted clan support could be realistic with regard to player owned assets and territory control in the context of instancing and the various modes, listened to the objections of the opposing side, and adjusted their requests a little, they might be met with less opposition.

I'm not forgetting that this isn't a vote, and that even 100% support is no guarantee of a feature being added, but it might at least move the debate on, rather than continuing round in circles.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yep mostly the old folk are scared of massively social and massively multiplayer features so they want to prevent the rest of the players (roughly 50%) from being able to build, own and manage structures, stations, guilds etc.

It's a really sad situation that the old folk are holding Elite Dangerous back as a shallow game. Even when being told that all those things will be optional and avoidable they still abhor it and want to stop other players from enjoying those things in Elite.

Elite Dangerous: Blaze your Old-Fans Trail.

1) You presume it is the older folk voting against rather than a mixed demographic.

2) I'm an old folk and i voted for: Yes but it doesn't personally interest me so as long as it doesn't affect the game play for me I have no problem.

The reason for this is we more or less have it.

Since nobody actually specificed what it would actually entail. If its just player groups, we already have that ability. Actually, even if they went full EvE style, it still wouldn't affect my game, because i play in group most of the time, and i bet 99% of clans would be in open, since that they only way they get to show off their.... skills (you know the word i want to write here, but possibly not allowed under forum rules).

However, fortunately (from my perspective), FD have said they will add more grouping features, but do it with their own style, it won't be a clone of existing systems. FD do tend to go their own way with things. Not always in a way that pleases everyone (because that's impossible anyway) but at least they are trying something different rather than trying to make another cookie cutter MMO. There are plenty of those out there.

 

[Soliluna]

I'd like to see player owned offices when first person mode is introduced. However, that could be over a year away yet. Also, as these offices or HQs would be in NPC controlled starports, and similar versions could be made available to all players, including solo/group players, I don't imagine there would be much grounds for anyone to object.

Right now, even though clans and player owned facilities are often asked for together, they don't depend on each other, making them completely separate issues. Most of the reasonable objections to better player group/clan support are actually objections to group territorial control. Which is something that cannot happen in this game anyway, due to the separate modes.

There has been a hint in the group thread, that the process is going to be steam-lined for registering player groups "soon(ish)". It would seem like a good opportunity to add some of these features I'm the same vague timescale.

Either way, if the players who wanted clan support could be realistic with regard to player owned assets and territory control in the context of instancing and the various modes, listened to the objections of the opposing side, and adjusted their requests a little, they might be met with less opposition.

I'm not forgetting that this isn't a vote, and that even 100% support is no guarantee of a feature being added, but it might at least move the debate on, rather than continuing round in circles.

It's the same with all threads here, people take things to the extreme and always introduce slippery slope arguments. Just take the SRV trails thread where people reasonably want some temporary trail to be left by their srv driving (and presumably their ship landing). It's always taken to the extreme of them being permanent and requiring huge data storage and being low down on the priority list due to the difficulty of adding them etc. Even when experienced game designers or modders chime in to educate how simple such a system would be to introduce and that the discussion really should hinge on how important it is to peoples enjoyment, you always get slippery slope mcgee and joe schmoe the business analyst shooting down the ideas.

Ultimately the decision is not going to be made based on the debating skills of the forum community, if FD think it's a good idea they will introduce it. I'm hoping they do, having all of the systems that are currently processed by the community team happen in game would benefit the experience and probably make things easier for the community team. Allowing players to support a minor faction, to have their allegiance show in scans and be able to easily communicate with their faction or player group isn't really a big ask and certainly doesn't negatively effect other peoples experiences. Not any more than already existing systems would.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can't you see why? Being in player group I can tell you why. We can't look at our roster all the time especially when it has 500+ on it and growing everyday. It would be nice to have an in-game tag for fellow members. In game clan recognition has already occurred now they just need to take it a step further. I'm not asking for anything game shattering here.

While you might not be, there is no clear, concise, agreed, single list of features being requested with respect to Guilds / Corps / Clans. There are those who assume that guild banking / inventory would automatically follow while there are those who simply want to have greater functionality with respect to social features relating to a large group of players.

 

[JosiahD]

So you desire to keep players from playing the way they want to play. Got it!

Except, of course, it is not players stopping guilds/clans from exerting territorial control, owning assets etc - or even from better coordinating their activities in-game. That is by design, by Frontier. This is not a case of players stopping players from playing they want to - more a case of certain groups of players not having adapted, or unwilling to adapt, to the limitations/boundaries Frontier has included BY DESIGN (up to now at least). Yes, the game is advertised as 'play your way', but the unwritten subscript to that is 'within the boundaries of our design for the game'.
.
Clans/guilds are already using 3rd party tools to coordinate their activities. Now, while I'm not opposed to including improved communication and coordination tools in-game, given the 3rd party tools what advantage for Frontier is there in doing so? Many guilds/clans will continue to use the 3rd party tools anyway - I've seen that myself in other games, frequently. While there are many guilds/clans that would use such tools in a benign manner (eg PvE cooperation, exploration), there are those who will also use them to better coordinate more.....disruptive......activities. So improved guild/clan coomunication/coordination tools are not necessarily the panacea some think, in my opinion. Not saying they shouldn't be incorporated, just that it's not as straightforward as some might think when wider implications are considered.
.
Now, we know Frontier has no plans to incorporate territoral control by guilds/clans, beyond the ability to support a corresponding player-created NPC faction. But plans change, as we have already seen over the last couple of years. From my perspective, and given the wide use of 3rd party tools that would continue anyway, in-game communication/coordination tools would inevitably be seen by some as 'look, Frontier supports guild/clan play - now give us the tools to control territory'. It seems unlikely that Frontier would cave in to that, but.........

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

EVE is more appealing to new players than ED BECAUSE of corps.

Only to players who want corp/guild/clan style play though.

 

[GluttonyFang]

While there are many guilds/clans that would use such tools in a benign manner (eg PvE cooperation, exploration), there are those who will also use them to better coordinate more.....disruptive......activities.

Oh really...

Give me a few examples of these disruptive activities you speak of, I am so very curious and ready for a discussion on the matter...

 

[JosiahD]

Lets face it, people are scared of what guild mechanics might bring to the game. Even if they themselves can keep on playing PVE completely unaffected by other people being in guilds, their PVP lifestyle would forever change as there would be much less poor helpless sods going "oo like I was out at a belt with my sidewinder trying to make my first 100k and 2 leet players in FDLs killed me". The poor sods would suddenly be organised with proper guild backup, the 2 leet FDL pilots would have to adapt.

Or isn't that it? I bet it is. It's only solo strongmen that could possibly be affected.

On the contrary, guild mechanics that include things like territorial control affects all players. Conflict between guilds has collateral damage, in the same way that real world conflicts do. At its best, it drives players away from the regions they might otherwise want to play in / explore, at its worst it results in destruction of players who actually want nothing to do with it. And the solution is those that don't want a mechanic that, incidentally, is NOT incorporated in the game BY DESIGN should/must switch to solo or a private group? Here's a novel idea - how about those wanting guild territorial control instead adapting to the fact that this is not the game for that rather than simply insist that the rest of us should adapt to their playstyle or move on.