Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh no, what you just suggested is equivalent to profanity to certain portion of the community, incoming rage.

How dare you ask for any player collaboration and conflict, get out of this game this instance, you don't belong here, this is our game!

God, can't believe people are asking for these toxic mechanics... it's as if they think this is a MMO or something...

"At the moment it's impossible for players to collaborate?" he asked a member of the Code.
"Rats" he exclaimed, "this will Fuel another threadzilla"

If only we could have the capacity to organise large group events, like getting 600+ people to the other side of the galaxy.

Just don't bag all player groups into the same stereotype.

While you continue to paint anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view in the same stereotype post after post?

 

[GluttonyFang]

"At the moment it's impossible for players to collaborate?" he asked a member of the Code.
"Rats" he exclaimed, "this will Fuel another threadzilla"

If only we could have the capacity to organise large group events, like getting 600+ people to the other side of the galaxy.

While you continue to paint anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view in the same stereotype post after post?

That would be fun, I would probably fall asleep half way and run into a sun @_@

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

I personally think formal clan or guilds within the game should be a non issue.

The size of the galaxy is such that both "lone wolf" and "clan" gameplay can perfectly coexist without cannibalizing each other.

And the way to go about it in my mind can be perfectly tailored and aligned to how Elite is currently evolving:

- At the moment FDEV is already fostering mechanics whereby players can support and even expand a minor faction of their choosing.

- All we would need therefore is simply a feature that reflects that "in game" by:

1. Allowing players to select in game that minor faction,
2. Displaying that selection in the player ID when scanned and
3. Make sure that any minor faction supported by players has a marker in its ID (system map and units ID) that identifies it as such "player supported" as opposed to an only AI controlled minor faction.

- Give actual in game meaning to this selection feature: Any BGS mission or action by a player that has selected a minor faction in game, would impact the influence of said minor faction at a higher multiplier than it would normally otherwise. This would also require "cool down" rules in case a player decides to leave a minor faction so to avoid easy flip flopping etc. Similarly there would need to be in game rules to adopt new minor factions (i.e. no larger than a certain size to start with etc).

- This would also greatly help in Open PvP gameplay as players could much more easily and effectively recognize territorial issues when other minor faction players come into close range and plan/strategize and play accordingly

 

[Varrag]

In short control over players and territory.

Exactly. Good thing with ED is that we don't lack territory outside of the bubble. Also, there are no in-game bottlenecks which could force lone players to clash with player groups. Clan play could easily be just another layer of the game which works parallel to all others and those who aren't interested wouldn't be affected in any way, if they choose to ignore it.

 

[GluttonyFang]

While you continue to paint anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view in the same stereotype post after post?

I actually analyze them individually and put them into unique categories

I am meticulous.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ah, then I wish to clarify that the trend has been quite supportive of player interaction and player groups.

Again, not surprising given that E: D has two multi-player game modes.

What may have come as a surprise to some is that the player group development is based on player sponsored Minor Factions - tying them to the BGS. It will be interesting to see what QoL improvements for player groups are introduced.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I personally think formal clan or guilds within the game should be a non issue.

The size of the galaxy is such that both "lone wolf" and "clan" gameplay can perfectly coexist without cannibalizing each other.


But the way to go about in my mind can be perfectly tailored to how Elite is evolving:

- At the moment FDEV is already fostering mechanics whereby players can support a minor faction of their choosing.
- All we would need therefore is simply a feature that reflects that "in game" by: 1) Allowing players to select in game that minor faction and 2) Displaying that selection in the player ID when scanned
- Give actual in game meaning to this selection feature: Any BGS mission or action by a player that has selected a minor faction would impact the influence of said minor faction at a higher multiplier than would otherwise. This would also require "cool down" rules in case a player decides to leave a faction so to avoid too much flip flopping etc.

This seems like a realistic and functional step forward that won't get on anyone's nerve.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Second warning.

Stop picking on each other.

Thank you.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Again, not surprising given that E: D has two multi-player game modes.

What may have come as a surprise to some is that the player group development is based on player sponsored Minor Factions - tying them to the BGS. It will be interesting to see what QoL improvements for player groups are introduced.

Very true, I look forward to it.

 

[Mitore]

What would stop people to blaze their own trail if there would be clans? You can ignore it, like juicy shadow missions. Do your own thing right?

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

Oh i forgot to add, how awesome it would be if you could see all the other mates on map without adding 1000 people to your friendlist?

 

[GluttonyFang]

What would stop people to blaze their own trail if there would be clans? You can ignore it, like juicy shadow missions. Do your own thing right?

Certain people seem to want to separate player generated content from NPC content. Basically, some believe that their ability to play in Open in an area that a player controls will be hindered.

With instancing the way it is, it's unlikely for players to meet each other to begin with, unless they friended one another. Then following, getting interdicted in a system is no different than getting interdicted by NPCs that are exerting their control, as we can see in PP.

So I really don't get it .-.

 

[Kazacy]

Make a pilot with a clan tag as part of the name.

Interesting "solution" here.
First i don't want to change my commander name, and second even if i do this when (please notice "when" not "if") i will leave the group/clan etc i have to reset my save. No thanks.

 

[Jaiotu]

Can't you do all that now? Here, I'll 'splain. No, 'splaining will take too long. Lemme sum up.

Make a pilot with a clan tag as part of the name.

Teamspeak. Ventrilo. Skype. Hells, there are tons to pick from. There's your "clan chat channel".

Perhaps the one semi-salient point/thing not already in the game. But why limit it to just clans? Why can't one person in solo help get stations constructed by defending/shipping materials and then reside there? Or a planetary shack, for that matter? This isn't in the game for anyone, much less clans.

With the aforementioned communication alternatives, what's to stop ANYONE from cooperating and/or struggling with other player groups over your assets and resources?

Making a pilot name with a clan tag isn't going to work unless Frontier makes changing your CMDR name a game feature. Right now the only way to change your Commander name is to clear your save or open a ticket. If everyone in your clan clears their save then you'll have a very weak clan. If they all open tickets then Frontier has to decide if its worth the effort and if it makes sense. And then six months from now when you're current clan dissolves and you want to join another clan you have to go back and open another ticket.

And what if I decide to rename my save to indicate that I am part of the CODE? I'm not... I don't have any connections to CODE at all. But lets say I named my character in such a way as to indicate that I was. Then I go out and act like a jerk to everyone else in the game. Code gets blamed and gets a bad name because of me. No. Clan tags, IF implemented, would have to be able to be administered by the people actually running the clan.

 

[Mohrgan]

Certain people seem to want to separate player generated content from NPC content. Basically, some believe that their ability to play in Open in an area that a player controls will be hindered.

With instancing the way it is, it's unlikely for players to meet each other to begin with, unless they friended one another. Then following, getting interdicted in a system is no different than getting interdicted by NPCs that are exerting their control, as we can see in PP.

So I really don't get it .-.

Yeah you do. The wool is getting a little threadbare.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Yeah you do. The wool is getting a little threadbare.

I really don't >_>...

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Display my player group's tag.

Fair enough. Doesn't add much. Support were allowing people to change their CMDR names a while back to add tags but i think they stopped it, or said it could only be done once. Being able to add tags by yourself could be nice though, although i'd rather have some sort of ability to align myself with a faction so when people scan me it shows my faction. We now have factions for player groups, so this could be a good in-game variant.

Have a clan chat channel.

Tricky due to the game's architecture. It basically would require a many-to-many channel sending messages to every player in the group online. With bigger groups, this would be very nasty. Unless they routed all comms through a central server. But yeah, i'd be happy with an in-game chat channel rather than having to rely on third party tools. Just no global chat, ugh.

Build outposts or land bases in uninhabited/unclaimed systems.

Would you be ok if FD added this ability for single players as well as long as they put in the same amount of effort? Would you be ok for single players to get the same benefits? If so, cool. If not, then we have a problem.

Cooperate and/or struggle with other player groups over our assets and resources.

How, when I can fly right past your struggle in group/solo without you being able to do a thing about it? Same as those other groups could do the same. In ED the only way to have any sort of territorial control is by agreement and trust between two groups, and even then, instancing could foil any sort of region/asset control attempt. Probably not something even worth FD spending time on.

 

[Viajero]

This seems like a realistic and functional step forward that won't get on anyone's nerve.

I have updated my original suggestion with a bit more added detail.

 

[GluttonyFang]

But yeah, i'd be happy with an in-game chat channel rather than having to rely on third party tools. Just no global chat, ugh.

Yea... I'm not too hot for General Chat... I would feel bad for the person writing the filter code for it... (Pun not intended)

Would you be ok if FD added this ability for single players as well as long as they put in the same amount of effort? Would you be ok for single players to get the same benefits? If so, cool. If not, then we have a problem.

I say it's fair, the whole reason why people collaborate is to help one another out and accomplish a large goal.

How, when I can fly right past your struggle in group/solo without you being able to do a thing about it? Same as those other groups could do the same. In ED the only way to have any sort of territorial control is by agreement and trust between two groups, and even then, instancing could foil any sort of region/asset control attempt. Probably not something even worth FD spending time on.

PP already showed us how terrible an idea it is, there must be some sort of alternative implementation if this kind of mechanic is ever introduced.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I have updated my original suggestion with a bit more added detail.

I read it, it makes sense.

The only concern some players might have is the influence of a faction through different modes, as PP have frustrated some players already.

But that concern can be addressed by claiming that instancing wouldn't allow people to see all the players anyway.

I think as long as there's a limit (the cd you mentioned) to how much influence can one person have in a day to a specific system's BGS and have a reasonable diminishing return scaling on the number of people influencing a faction positively and negatively, then we should have something most will accept.

On a separate note, too tired, eyes are closing, 4:30 AM... sleep...

 

[Jaiotu]

Display my player group's tag. Have a clan chat channel. Build outposts or land bases in uninhabited/unclaimed systems. Cooperate and/or struggle with other player groups over our assets and resources.

Would you be ok if FD added this ability for single players as well as long as they put in the same amount of effort? Would you be ok for single players to get the same benefits? If so, cool. If not, then we have a problem..

THIS!
I want Construction Limpets added to the game! Let me drop out in a system dump a bunch of scrap metal and fire a couple of construction limpets. This will then create a "Construction Zone" target while in supercruise where anybody (Solo, Private, Open) can contribute to the construction of the project. As long as enough material is delivered to the site in an allotted time frame a new outpost (or station if enough material gets delivered) will begin full construction. That would be nice.