Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[trollson]

Really it all depends on what they would add to the game. I wouldn't interpret failures of clans in other games as a reason not to have them in Elite Dangerous - but certainly as a "lessons learned" on why those failed. I must admit to having fun in a Guild in other MMORPG ("RICH" in Eternal Lands)...

In Elite Dangerous, IMHO, minor factions should be extended to support player membership (a level above "allied") - that would, I feel, fit into the game more smoothly. A brief synopsis (brain dump of a suggestion I have not bothered to post) would be:

• Players can join one (1) Minor Faction as a Member, and will receive an invitation some time after reaching allied status with that Faction.
• Members continue to run missions for their Faction, but earned reputation is converted to action Points they can spend on Options within the Faction.
• The Bulletin Board will present Options at locations where a Player's Faction has a presence.
• The Options include increasing the Player's Rank within the Faction - with a cost equal to their current Rank in Points.
• All other Options cost one (1) Point, but have an effect equal to the Player's Rank.
• Voting Options - Players can vote on an Faction issue once per station, each vote carries the Player's Rank in weight. Note that these are not really "votes" but exerting influence on Faction decisions.
• Voting - Factions are assumed to have a body of NPCs who are also exerting their influence in a AI-determined split. Therefore a Faction with a single Player Member does not become a dictatorship.
• Options include raising a Faction Vote in response to Player-involved circumstances. This allows Players to direct the course of the Faction, rather than just selecting the course.
• Votes have "cooldown" before the same issue can be raised again - prevent spamming.
• Options may include leading a Faction controlled Security Wing, etc. Time/system limited.
• Options may include votes on expansion.
• Options may include...

Of course, for this to actually work, the background simulation must be made to work - working economics etc.

 

[The_Quasar]

People voting against clans are just paranoid.

Or we've just been involved in them in other games and don't like their negative aspects.

I am definitely not paranoid just because I don't agree with your personal tastes.

 

[Quineloe]

Any player that has to declare themselves hardcore, is not a hardcore player.

That is an interesting statement. Reminds me of the joke that it's impossible to say you don't have an alcohol problem without sounding like you really, really do.

 

[JosiahD]

Quite a lot have changed since the kickstarter, and everyone has witnessed it more or less.

Things that didn't exist since then exist now, wings, PP, player group faction, and name-change tagging for player groups. If you didn't know the latter, I won't blame you, since you don't seem to have much experience in Open.

What you are doing is denying people things you do not enjoy, it's quite simple.

Do you know why some player groups want name tags? Take The Code for example, because we are a well-known piracy organization, people go around and falsely use our name, then we end up with complaints piling up that are against people who don't exist in our organization. The forum gets filled with naming and shaming everywhere, calling people griefers left and right. AA suffers from this, too, having people impersonate them and kill noobs in starting systems.

But obviously that weakens your argument so you wouldn't want take that into consideration more.

I don't know how closely do you pay attention to the movement of the devs, why do you think group ranking emerged? Why do you think there's three different categories in player groups? Why do you think FD made a PvP player group one of the TE groups? Why do you think they responded to the Hutton incident the way they did? Why do you think there's Educating ED? Why do you think player groups are one of the focus of the recent charity livestream?

Or are you just shutting your eyes and covering your ears? I don't know, you tell me.

I haven't pushed for anything at all in this thread, other than pointing out some silly arguments and clarifying on some concepts and systems if guild mechanics were introduced.

So how about you stop jumping the gun as if your life is on the line if the game even evolves an inch from where it currently stands?

Edit:

"These features are pretty common in any MMO, how many of these should be implemented is up to FD."

I get that you acknowledged the statement, but read it a few more times please, just read it a few more times, it's healthy.

On the contrary - it is Frontier who have denied guilds the type of gameplay mechanics they want, through a deliberate, considered design decision. You may not agree with it, but per my earlier post, the umpire's decision has been made (and hasn't changed in, what, 2 years?), however inconvenient that might be for some. It's a design decision that I, and many others, happen to agree with. But that's the common misrepresentation presented by many proponents of guild play, particularly of the territorial control variety. It is convenient to portray those who simply agree with, and defend, Frontier's deliberate and considered design decision where guilds are concerned as the ones denying the guild players the playstyle they want. It's an inconvenient truth for those wanting guild mechanics of the kind you described earlier that it's been Frontier's decision to omit those mechanics and aren't changing that position any time soon, at least where guild territorial play and the like is concerned. You rightly point out that there have been a number of changes through and since the kickstarter, but another inconvenient truth for the guild proponents is that even though other things have changed or been added/deleted in all the time since, Frontier's position on guild ownership of territory or assets has not changed throughout. And won't. You 'might' yet get the improved communication and coordination tools (items 1-5 in your earlier list) and I for one won't die in a ditch over those. But the more advanced mechanics you described as the next step, being the base building, territoral conflict and such, is another thing entirely. Again, those of us who oppose or disagree with that style of guild play are NOT the ones denying guild proponents that playstyle and it is actually disingenuous to suggest otherwise - we're merely agreeing with Frontier's deliberate design decision to this point and want them to stick to their guns in that regard.

 

[Commander Debic]

Honestly, no. Why would we want to manually control who can come into our systems when we're already have an administrative load with our own members? If passes exist I would expect them to be controlled by the NPC faction and at most the player controllers could ask for them to be on or off.


Then play in solo. Or with your friends. Or just realise that with the p2p networking the chances of you meeting up with another player is actually really slim.

Did you miss where I mentioned player factions asking for passes to "their" systems to be introduced, their pleading would be along the lines of "we feel it is unfair/impossible to grow our faction if we cannot stop spoilers coming into "our" system from group or solo and affecting it especially when they start promoting factions to powers which has already been promised to one unnamed faction this year.

I have little faith in FD stopping the clamour if it gets loud enough, and when I see Devs saying "we have no plans for the foreseeable future," extrapolated to "sometime we could do something alongside those lines."

Regardless of which mode I want to play in be it solo/private/open I should not be restricted from exploring the galaxy, the whole galaxy and nothing but the galaxy except for those areas designated no go by FD themselves or needing passes which I can work for as an independent player. That is the game as promised from KS days.

My problem is this path of Power Play, minor factions, Power factions and control of areas as if they were home systems and areas belonging to players groups and then alliances of groups, call them corps if you want sounds suspiciously like another game.

Instead of the cooperative PVP play, and player killing having heavy consequences and should only happen in rare and meaningful circumstances, as envisaged and stated by our major shareholder, we already have that griefing type player killing that the other game has in abundance. So all I see with the present progress of this path is another space sim of a similar genre to Eve, which many here, from this games earliest inception have quite often mused they didn't want ED to emulate.
The back door to this game is slowly being forced open, in my opinion, and I hope somewhere along the line it is forcefully slammed shut, locked, bolted and bricked up by DB.

So the present progress towards power factions leads me to a position that if I wanted to travel through a series of systems controlled by a player faction and perhaps meet other players in open cooperatively, would be a no no as an independent player, perhaps to explore, trade, mine, BH, mission or smuggle, unless I joined that player faction if they let me.
It is why I am against Power Play also to be honest as it restricts me from other systems especially with players killing any they find in systems who are not aligned to the Power they are.

With Power Play, restrictions on travel and game playing in open were enacted unless a player joined their faction. Now I see that slowly being extended to player factions and with those player factions being elevated to powers how long before the control of their space is also extended to them.

 

[This Forum Sucks]

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...

*Duck and chuckle in the background*

I think you know full well that the reason some people don't like that suggestion is that the next step is to remove solo & group modes because they're unfair.

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.

See what I mean?

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.

This is the heart of the matter really, Frontier have a limited amount of development time and they're probably better off spending it on things that every player can take part in, rather than adding something that wouldn't really work with the current multiplayer modes/instancing and will therefore inevitably lead to a follow up campaign to change the entire multiplayer system from the ground up.

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.

Building stuff would be really cool but it's unlikely to ever happen because how would it work? It's a logistical nightmare, even discounting solo/group modes. Imagine clan A has a base and they're all flying around it happily when some ships from clan B, in a different instance, blow it up - clan A just sees their base explode for no reason. How do you work around that without either rebuilding the game from the ground up to be a single-instance with no choice of online modes or making all structures invulnerable?

Adding a clan system is a pretty good idea but players controlling space is pretty much unworkable. Letting people rent space inside stations is much more feasible but should it be a priority in a game about flying spaceships?

 

[Varrag]

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.

Of course. I imagine it would be harder for lone wolves (assuming that building AND maintaining an outpost requires considerable amount of resources and money), but there is no reason to deny them access to this feature. After all, Braben was talking about small inflatable bases sometime during the early development, so I guess that solo players might get a choice to build something smaller and less demanding than the outpost.

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.

Yes, given the existing game infrastructure, some sort of agreement would be necessary. Not literally a mutual agreement, but for example act of war declaration which one clan puts on another may be used as trigger for special set of rules added to current p2p matchmaker: the most fundamental thing here would be an attempt to create new, high-priority instances whenever the members of the two warring groups are nearby.

 

[Garbarrage]

Did you miss where I mentioned player factions asking for passes to "their" systems to be introduced, their pleading would be along the lines of "we feel it is unfair/impossible to grow our faction if we cannot stop spoilers coming into "our" system from group or solo and affecting it especially when they start promoting factions to powers which has already been promised to one unnamed faction this year.

I have little faith in FD stopping the clamour if it gets loud enough, and when I see Devs saying "we have no plans for the foreseeable future," extrapolated to "sometime we could do something alongside those lines."

Regardless of which mode I want to play in be it solo/private/open I should not be restricted from exploring the galaxy, the whole galaxy and nothing but the galaxy except for those areas designated no go by FD themselves or needing passes which I can work for as an independent player. That is the game as promised from KS days.

My problem is this path of Power Play, minor factions, Power factions and control of areas as if they were home systems and areas belonging to players groups and then alliances of groups, call them corps if you want sounds suspiciously like another game.

Instead of the cooperative PVP play, and player killing having heavy consequences and should only happen in rare and meaningful circumstances, as envisaged and stated by our major shareholder, we already have that griefing type player killing that the other game has in abundance. So all I see with the present progress of this path is another space sim of a similar genre to Eve, which many here, from this games earliest inception have quite often mused they didn't want ED to emulate.
The back door to this game is slowly being forced open, in my opinion, and I hope somewhere along the line it is forcefully slammed shut, locked, bolted and bricked up by DB.

So the present progress towards power factions leads me to a position that if I wanted to travel through a series of systems controlled by a player faction and perhaps meet other players in open cooperatively, would be a no no as an independent player, perhaps to explore, trade, mine, BH, mission or smuggle, unless I joined that player faction if they let me.
It is why I am against Power Play also to be honest as it restricts me from other systems especially with players killing any they find in systems who are not aligned to the Power they are.

With Power Play, restrictions on travel and game playing in open were enacted unless a player joined their faction. Now I see that slowly being extended to player factions and with those player factions being elevated to powers how long before the control of their space is also extended to them.

Sorry, but it seems that you've taken a running jump at the slippery slope. There has been zero indication from FD that the stance on player owned assets and territory is even open for debate.

I'm not a fan of PP either, although there is politics in Elite lore, so it stands to reason that something along those lines should be in the game. That players align themselves to these powers and can choose to attack players aligned to others is kinda the point of open.

There are parts of space that are dangerous. Sometimes that danger is a black hole, neutron, or close binary stars. Sometimes it's a high G planet. Sometimes it's the socio-political situation in a region.

You aren't restricted from travelling anywhere, nor will you ever be (even if FD went full-on clan warfare). But you do have to negotiate hazards.

I'd just like to reiterate that I'm not particularly in favour of adding clan features beyond some QoL and cosmetic stuff. But I don't think we need clans to present the restrictions (or as much restriction as the framework of this game allows) that you seem to be concerned by. It's just not going to get any worse no matter what FD do. Unless they centralize the servers and remove solo and group. IOW, it's just not going to happen.

 

[Ozimandeus]

I had to vote HELL NO.

Why? Because I think Elite could do it better than the limited way guilds/clans/tribes have been done in the past. EvE's business style would be more interesting. But even more interesting than that would be minor factions, managed by frontier themselves, this kind of managed group event, is already much more interesting. I share the concerns of many of Elite's historic backers, the last thing this game needs is further organised griefing. I also don't want Elite to go down the road of raiding either, with its childish loot treadmill. The game already supports wings, so you can already wing up with your friends. It will support multiplayer ships soon as well.

However, I would like to see more community tools in game, e.g. a general chat limited by region, mission builders (so you can create missions for other players), etc.
But overall Elite should stand apart from other juvenile mmos. It apeals to an older, wiser, gamer and for that very reason we don't need little clubs with small minded goals.

 

[Commander Debic]

Sorry, but it seems that you've taken a running jump at the slippery slope. There has been zero indication from FD that the stance on player owned assets and territory is even open for debate.

I'm not a fan of PP either, although there is politics in Elite lore, so it stands to reason that something along those lines should be in the game. That players align themselves to these powers and can choose to attack players aligned to others is kinda the point of open.

There are parts of space that are dangerous. Sometimes that danger is a black hole, neutron, or close binary stars. Sometimes it's a high G planet. Sometimes it's the socio-political situation in a region.

You aren't restricted from travelling anywhere, nor will you ever be (even if FD went full-on clan warfare). But you do have to negotiate hazards.

I'd just like to reiterate that I'm not particularly in favour of adding clan features beyond some QoL and cosmetic stuff. But I don't think we need clans to present the restrictions (or as much restriction as the framework of this game allows) that you seem to be concerned by. It's just not going to get any worse no matter what FD do. Unless they centralize the servers and remove solo and group. IOW, it's just not going to happen.

I have taken no running jumps at any slippery slopes, what I have done is followed certain remarks made by devs when asked certain leading questions by player factions on the forums.

You have no need to inform me of the dangers in Elite Dangerous as I have been aware of them since I began playing since KS days.

Your not restricted in travelling anywhere statement is pedantically true, but as an independent I am restricted from many places in open with the introduction of Power Play which was never a part of the original plans that were mooted. Unless of course while trading in open I am able to fight off a wing of heavily armed and powerful, Power Play aligned players, who interdict me and despite my experience cause enough damage to me in a very short time that even with my Cutter I would be unable to power away.

You do not have to own space any more than in EVE, the group of allances/corps owned by the Goonsquad owns space, although they do own assets in the space they call their own.

All you need to effectively own large tracts of space is to have some form of control over others who wish to travel through. In this game such a system already exists in the form of passes needed to access certain systems. Extend them to Power player Factions when they are made, and you can bet your life that they will clamour for the passes with such excuses I have iterated, and others I haven't yet thought of to try to pressure FD to give them that power, and you player factions will certainly be able to control space.

 

[Black-Bart]

I have voted YES.

Why? I personally like the idea of clans. I would like to be able to form or be part of a group of fellow commanders who can be identified in-game, build things, own things, have ranks etc.

I'm quite involved in the ED community, as I run Radio Sidewinder, and think I have a rough idea of what the community would like to see. I have quite a lot of player groups contacting me and have some listed on my site. You only just need to look here: http://inara.cz/wings to see that lots of commanders want to have proper clans/groups.

I do think there would need to be rules on the minimum number of active players though. Don't want to see lots of 1 and 2 player groups!

 

[Robert Maynard]

I do think there would need to be rules on the minimum number of active players though. Don't want to see lots of 1 and 2 player groups!

Why would there need to be a minimum active membership? That would seem to be lacking in inclusion of small player groups...

 

[Black-Bart]

Why would there need to be a minimum active membership? That would seem to be lacking in inclusion of small player groups...

I was just thinking that it would save a lot of clutter. If you look at the lists of organisations on Star Citizen there are hundreds with just 1 or 2 members. But it's not that important, if FD want to include all sizes - its fine with me!

 

[Miklos Atreides]

What I can see the basics are already here. You have minor factions in place.
Some of them own already stations, some even systems. Ok currently influence to rulie a station or systems is very limited but
thinking the next step is FD allows to change parameters of an installation or system e.g the list of prohibited good in an owned station.

So I am pretty sure things will evolve over time and the fact FD is keepeing basic control of it is fully ok. There are too many players that have moved
away from EVE because of the status of things as they were there.

FD should go its own way and very carefully open up the possibilities to player controlled factions to keep the universe open for all.

Clans and player factions can't make the winning game, but they can destroy a game entirely.

Regards,
Miklos

 

[Flea King]

To quote another incarnation, I'd support clans/groups/gangs as long as they are represented through the following criteria:

- the players must leave their existing group, that of the Pilot's Federation. As such all insurance costs are to be supplied by the group
- this can be achieved by having every other group member absorb the insurance cost from their own accounts. This also removes the problems of having a shared group credit account.
- every group member recieves a three letter tag, displayed after their commander's name.
- every group has access to their own chat channel and messaging system.
- the group, once formed, can petition for a group skin for one type of ship, or all if the work load is willing.
- there is no formal hierachy represented by the group system. Ranks, titles and the empowerment that follows is created and sustained by the group, outside of the system.
- the number and the names of current group members can be identified through scanning a group member with a Kill Warrant Scanner.

 

[Reaper99]

So because you want to do it yourself, you feel that others shouldn't have the ability to collaborate and you feel somehow disadvantaged...

Hah... another one of those...

Edit:

So much for the game being multiplayer/Co-op...

Not to disagree with you Gluttony...I don't think its a for or against argument for multi/coop play but rather maybe a concern that by introducing a more structured clan/guild system it may give undue benefit to a group over someone else...not that clan/guilds are bad really...but they do give added edges for a lot of things.

Even now...I believe you are part of a player faction if I recall...even though it isn't clanned in game...I would almost lay money that ya'll probably use TS or some other program that would allow a larger undertaking for coordinated goals...and though one can't give cash per se...you could abandon a lot of high end cargo...let a member pick it up and sell it to get instant access to cash they would have had to work for otherwise...this is not a bad thing either...its coop emergent play...helping your mates...a solo player wouldn't benefit...but a guy in say Mobius could also benefit from same situation...anyone that had richer buddies could really. Clan/Guilds can tip the balances and can cause large gaps...you have to be able to see that to...its not really about who's rite or wrong, but rather is it something to implement now or ever...and if so what are the implications....what effects will it have on all players.

 

[Deadspin]

To quote another incarnation, I'd support clans/groups/gangs as long as they are represented through the following criteria:

- the players must leave their existing group, that of the Pilot's Federation. As such all insurance costs are to be supplied by the group
- this can be achieved by having every other group member absorb the insurance cost from their own accounts. This also removes the problems of having a shared group credit account.
- every group member recieves a three letter tag, displayed after their commander's name.
- every group has access to their own chat channel and messaging system.
- the group, once formed, can petition for a group skin for one type of ship, or all if the work load is willing.
- there is no formal hierachy represented by the group system. Ranks, titles and the empowerment that follows is created and sustained by the group, outside of the system.
- the number and the names of current group members can be identified through scanning a group member with a Kill Warrant Scanner.

I'm scratching my head while I read this list..
.
This entire argument is positively bonkers.
.
Clans will ruin the game? lolokay..
.
As if the current mechanics disallow player groups to gang up on other people. I've personally witnessed groups of up to 12 players not in a wing come together and collaborate to attack a single player or a single wing of players. Giving people the ability to say, "Hey! I'm affiliated with this particular minor faction right here!" just like they do with PP factions is not going to make this process/event any more prolific or any more of a nuisance than it already is.
.
Those of us who live in the modern world, the world not hamstrung by the whims of people who last played a video game 30 years ago, tend to enjoy being able to group up with friends and "belong" to something more than just the concept of a wing.
.
I hope those of you who are dead set against any type of group functionality beyond wings are ready. Guild-like functions are coming and there isn't anything that can be done to stop it.

 

[Garbarrage]

I have taken no running jumps at any slippery slopes, what I have done is followed certain remarks made by devs when asked certain leading questions by player factions on the forums.

You have no need to inform me of the dangers in Elite Dangerous as I have been aware of them since I began playing since KS days.

Your not restricted in travelling anywhere statement is pedantically true, but as an independent I am restricted from many places in open with the introduction of Power Play which was never a part of the original plans that were mooted. Unless of course while trading in open I am able to fight off a wing of heavily armed and powerful, Power Play aligned players, who interdict me and despite my experience cause enough damage to me in a very short time that even with my Cutter I would be unable to power away.

You do not have to own space any more than in EVE, the ClusterF>>> group of allances/corps owned by the Goonsquad owns space, although they do own assets in the space they call their own.

All you need to effectively own large tracts of space is to have some form of control over others who wish to travel through. In this game such a system already exists in the form of passes needed to access certain systems. Extend them to Power player Factions when they are made, and you can bet your life that they will clamour for the passes with such excuses I have iterated, and others I haven't yet thought of to try to pressure FD to give them that power, and you player factions will certainly be able to control space.

You're confusing the issue as an "all or nothing" demand. Groups (in whatever form) enrich the playing experience for those who like that sort of gameplay. You are indeed using a slippery slope fallacy to propose a blanket objection to groups, based on a worst case scenario that there is no essential basis for. Players clamouring does not mean that there's any onus on FD to listen.

Without granting the power to restrict space to players, you will be no more inconvenienced by clans than you are already.

I wasn't informing you of the dangers, I was drawing a comparison between the various dangers that are already present. There should be regions of space that present combat hazards, whether you seek combat or seek to avoid it. It's a core part of Elite lore. Without it, you'd have an experience not unlike Space Engine, if they just added ships to it.

My point is, that it's a little unfair to build a brick wall in front of the social aspects of gameplay based on what might happen if you let the megalomaniacs have everything they ask for. Instead, why not propose a limit that would be acceptable?

For example, would a clan chat channel/message, a way to recruit in game (like a want ad section of GalNet), adding minor faction or corp tags to player scans (minor faction NPCs have them. Why not players?), and having an office/HQ in an NPC controlled starport or outpost really affect you in a way that you're not already being affected?

Nothing is black and white.

 

[Flea King]

I'm scratching my head while I read this list..
.
This entire argument is positively bonkers.

I'll break it down for you.

- We're all, by default, affiliated with an existing group. The Pilot's Federation. Ergo, we should either need to leave said group to join a new one or be able to join two or more groups. I'd prefer the first option.

- As the Pilot's Federation are the ones supplying us our insurance, after we leave them we'll need to find another way of paying for our insurance.

- Guild banks, in their many forms, are a source of drama and I believe they should be avoided. Above and beyond the issues of ownership, access and control they woıuld also provide a simple source for those wishing to sell credits for real money. I'm sure folks can work out how.

- So how to cover the insurance? Having players pay a membership fee seem tricky, as we could have dormant/inactive accounts providing funding. So I propose the existing group members absorb the insurance costs from their own wallets. The more members, the lower the insurnace cost. The less members, the less of an insurance discount recieved. Sure, smaller groups will have it tough.

- Chat, tags and cosmetics are the reward for getting the group together and staying together.

- Scanning members to reveal membership provides transparency and promotes accountability. Again, I hope folks can understand why such values are important.

So yes, I'd like a player faction to come at a real cost. Once we've established them and we've gathered data on how the game world responds, we can approach additional complexities such as player owned bases, markets and the like.

As for the rest, I am already a member of a rather large gaming group of over hundred members, one that has been around for many years. We have no problems with organising ourselves in Elite, communicating with each other or establishing our presennce. We have our own Minor Faction in game and it growing well.

So really, and this is directed at the OP: Elite already has clans/player factions. That we are smart enough to utilize third party software, run and maintain our own site and organize our members without having to rely on Frontier to develop and provide us with our own tools to do so is hardly unique. In this way we save development time from being wasted on tools and systems that already exist. And for those that can't make use of them or run such a group? Chances are they are not going to enjoy much success with their group, in game, even if Frontier wasted development time in giving them the tools to make and attempt to run one.

 

[Kazacy]

- So how to cover the insurance? Having players pay a membership fee seem tricky, as we could have dormant/inactive accounts providing funding. So I propose the existing group members absorb the insurance costs from their own wallets. The more members, the lower the insurnace cost. The less members, the less of an insurance discount recieved. Sure, smaller groups will have it tough.

Marvelous idea!!! I will buy a second account, i will transfer some credits to buy a reasonable fitted ship, vulture around 30mil for example, join a player group, then i suicide the vulture again and again until i leave all the members of the group without credits. All of this preferable when the other players are offline