Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Varrag]

I'm trying to understand what ED is going for... it advertises with traditional tags, then try to offer unique gameplay, ends up upsetting people on quite a lot of fronts .-.

ED is a game with identity crisis. It is trying to be little bit of this (single player) and little bit of that (MMO) but at the end... this doesn't work too good in either department. It's the jack of all trades - master of none sort of thing. That's why, I believe, there's pretty much constant complaining about missions on one side, and lack of social/group gameplay on the other. Everyone gets only "little" of their favorite part.

Way that the game has been advertised certainly doesn't help.

 

[Nitek [pl]]

Clans and factions HAVE to be supported. Period. Is Elite supposed to be the first mmo without clans?
Either way clans and groups are already IN. The only thing is that lone players don't know who they are fighting.

 

[GluttonyFang]

E: D does not provide 'proper segregation'...even in large private groups random PvP can still...and does...occur.

True on the lack of negative affect...my words failed me on the description...or at least that car was left off the train of thought.

Both the other assertions are also true.

I do think that the devs vision clashes with what people expect of this 'advertised type' of game...basically an MMO. In most cases, I would bet solid money that when a person sees MMO, single player option, and a co-op mode...they believe that the MMO would be a segregated place...and with the addition of PvP...they would also expect a developer designed PvE mode would be available. When PvP players see the advertisement of PvP they expect their agency and that PvP would have as much, if not more of an affect on the outcomes within the game, than this game offers.

Basically, expectations of both sides are improper, although based on the gaming market and past reasonable expectations. Both sides get upset and, well, we see the schizophrenia daily.

(Not to even mention the modeler/simulation player vs. the gaming/play mentality!)

I agree with the sentiment, I am a composite of a lot of things, a solo player that expect a meaningful story, a PvE player that wants challenging NPCs, a PvP player that enjoys honing my skill against other players, a group player in both PvE and PvP for meaningful cooperation and group conflicts.

Though precisely because of this, I question FD's advertisement, because GW2 gave me all of the things I was looking for in a game, day one, and used fewer genre tags to encompass all of them.

While of course, fault can be found on the players expecting too much, but from a personal standpoint, I felt that FD bit off more than it can chew with the player base it attracted. It's not only detrimental to the players, but the game, as well. Shedding the playerbase obviously isn't an answer, so on one hand I want to give FD a thumbs up for trying something ambitious and fresh, while on the other hand I want to pinch its arm for rushing and taking on too much.

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

ED is a game with identity crisis. It is trying to be little bit of this (single player) and little bit of that (MMO) but at the end... this doesn't work too good in either department. It's the jack of all trades - master of none sort of thing. That's why, I believe, there's pretty much constant complaining about missions on one side, and lack of social/group gameplay on the other. Everyone gets only "little" of their favorite part.

Way that the game has been advertised certainly doesn't help.

It's Resident Evil 6 all over again >_>...

 

[Mohrgan]

Clans and factions HAVE to be supported. Period. Is Elite supposed to be the first mmo without clans?
Either way clans and groups are already IN. The only thing is that lone players don't know who they are fighting.

For the most part we are in the 'How' Cults should be supported phase of the discussion, not so much the 'If' phase. The advent of the Minor Factions and how that is going to shake out is the real relevant topic of interest. And, I do believe the lines have been drawn in those regards.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Clans and factions HAVE to be supported. Period. Is Elite supposed to be the first mmo without clans?
Either way clans and groups are already IN. The only thing is that lone players don't know who they are fighting.

And we have more gridlocks

 

[Yokoshima]

I'm talking about what a typical single player expects in a game that includes a single player mode. True, there is no scripted campaign advertised. The game can advertise itself with general tags like MMO/Co-op/Single Player, but it does not meet the expectation of a lot of those that purchase the game, hence why the abnormal amount of conflict between community members. Take the recent release of Battlefront for example, it advertised for a single player option, but people didn't get a campaign, and it was criticized for it.



I already argued for this and you participated in the discussion in the mega thread of death.



I've yet to find any content that requires a group of players.



True, and like I said, I remember you linking to the documents before. But as we can see with the introduction of features such as PP, it creates major problems and fragment the community further. Also, these information weren't made apparent and available on fronts of advertisement. (Reasonable business maneuver, but the amount of recoil is probably much higher than they expected in this case)



But when these individual complaints all have a considerable amount of support behind them, it's time to question the advertisement that brought in the playerbase that are somehow neatly divided into blocks.

Having played games like M&B:WB as a solo player I don't necessary expect a scripted story, less so from a sandbox game. I do however expect to have meaningful things to do aside from getting stronger.

 

[Roybe]

Clans and factions HAVE to be supported. Period. Is Elite supposed to be the first mmo without clans?
Either way clans and groups are already IN. The only thing is that lone players don't know who they are fighting.

This support is incoming..somewhere between Someday™ and Soon™. With a HUGE caveat: group support will be as different from a regular MMO type guild/clan as E: D is as different as any other AAA MMO. In other words, the devs will somehow redefine how people work together. The other thing that is definite is that there will be no way for groups to control galactic level assets...outside the manipulation of influence.

And folks...just a little plug for the Triadius group! I have personally played with quite a few of their group and if you want to learn to PvP...give them a holler..they definitely do that part of the game the right way!

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

I agree with the sentiment, I am a composite of a lot of things, a solo player that expect a meaningful story, a PvE player that wants challenging NPCs, a PvP player that enjoys honing my skill against other players, a group player in both PvE and PvP for meaningful cooperation and group conflicts.

Though precisely because of this, I question FD's advertisement, because GW2 gave me all of the things I was looking for in a game, day one, and used fewer genre tags to encompass all of them.

While of course, fault can be found on the players expecting too much, but from a personal standpoint, I felt that FD bit off more than it can chew with the player base it attracted. It's not only detrimental to the players, but the game, as well. Shedding the playerbase obviously isn't an answer, so on one hand I want to give FD a thumbs up for trying something ambitious and fresh, while on the other hand I want to pinch its arm for rushing and taking on too much.

Now if the rest of the community would just read this exchange...all the forum problems would be solved! ;p

 

[GluttonyFang]

Now if the rest of the community would just read this exchange...all the forum problems would be solved! ;p

Quick moderators, help us, you're my only hope!

Edit:

Someone break that voter's count please @_@

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm talking about what a typical single player expects in a game that includes a single player mode. True, there is no scripted campaign advertised. The game can advertise itself with general tags like MMO/Co-op/Single Player, but it does not meet the expectation of a lot of those that purchase the game, hence why the abnormal amount of conflict between community members. Take the recent release of Battlefront for example, it advertised for a single player option, but people didn't get a campaign, and it was criticized for it.

The original game was single player and did not have a scripted storyline. It was well enough thought of that, 28 years later, when a sequel was offered on Kickstarter it exceeded its, not inconsiderable, target comfortably.

I already argued for this and you participated in the discussion in the mega thread of death.

I don't remember there being unanimous agreement to you point of view in that case.

I've yet to find any content that requires a group of players.

The fact remains that the game requires to be able to be played by a single player.

True, and like I said, I remember you linking to the documents before. But as we can see with the introduction of features such as PP, it creates major problems and fragment the community further. Also, these information weren't made apparent and available on fronts of advertisement. (Reasonable business maneuver, but the amount of recoil is probably much higher than they expected in this case)

Powerplay (and Community Goals) were implemented for all players, in all play modes - they do not *require* direct player interaction (although players can indulge themselves should they so choose).

But when these individual complaints all have a considerable amount of support behind them, it's time to question the advertisement that brought in the playerbase that are somehow neatly divided into blocks.

It would be interesting indeed to see what level of support there actually was - it's difficult to determine without statistics. Whether the number of complainants were significant (or not) in relation to c.1M copies sold would also be interesting to discover.

 

[s0laris]

What is incomplete about Open?

The lack of means to facilitate player interaction. And im not even talking about complex stuff like trading between players.

There is a simple player list to track friends? You know, 1, ONE detailed screen can show your fellow clan members. Who is online? Where are they? Maybe a simple status message (looking for escort for free - as there is no way to honor other than drop cargo - looking for RES/CZ farm partner etc)? Clan MOTD message (Guys, 20:00 GMT Friday, mass trade groups, half traders, half escort, taking turns, etc)? Open should be a multiplayer playground.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I don't remember there being unanimous agreement to you point of view in that case.

You weren't, but as you described the nature of complaints, some people will see certain things as an issue, and some won't. There is no difference between perception and intention if people really want to argue over it, and it gets nowhere. Yet people still rely on critics and try to defend things, a strange phenomenon isn't it?

The fact remains that the game requires to be able to be played by a single player.

Right, and if MP is just a meaningless/less meaningful add-on, what qualifies it being a MP game?

Powerplay (and Community Goals) were implemented for all players, in all play modes - they do not *require* direct player interaction (although players can indulge themselves should they so choose).

Sure, in a conceptual sense, but we all saw how quickly it fell apart when examined in different perspectives with questions like:

"What's the point if people can just bypass any attempt to defend a system in PP if they can just log into another mode?"

"What's the point of a meangingful blockade if people just log into another mode?"

"What's the point of pirating a trade route if people just bypass it by using another mode?"

Sure, instancing already ruined everything as it is, but it doesn't help the argument exactly.

Not to mention, for a lot of people, regardless of PvE or PvP, didn't find PP interesting/engaging when it is suppose to be a political feature that gets people involved. I don't want to go into the flaws of PP further, because my experience in PP is probably going to make me write a paper on it.

It would be interesting indeed to see what level of support there actually was - it's difficult to determine without statistics. Whether the number of complainants were significant (or not) in relation to c.1M copies sold would also be interesting to discover.

Indeed, it would be interesting, since people can just utilize the system where FD implement in-game polls and incentive people to participate in it... oh wait...

Edit:

Thank you, whoever broke the voter's count.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You weren't, but as you described the nature of complaints, some people will see certain things as an issue, and some won't. There is no difference between perception and intention if people really want to argue over it, and it gets nowhere. Yet people still rely on critics and try to defend things, a strange phenomenon isn't it?

Indeed.

Right, and if MP is just a meaningless/less meaningful add-on, what qualifies it being a MP game?

All players can choose to join an Open access mode where they (subject to the matchmaking system) have the possibility of being instanced with any other player in that mode.

All players affect and experience the same shared galaxy state.

Sure, in a conceptual sense, but we all saw how quickly it fell apart when examined in different perspectives with questions like:

"What's the point if people can just bypass any attempt to defend a system in PP if they can just log into another mode?"

"What's the point of a meangingful blockade if people just log into another mode?"

"What's the point of pirating a trade route if people just bypass it by using another mode?"

Sure, instancing already ruined everything as it is, but it doesn't help the argument exactly.

Not to mention, for a lot of people, regardless of PvE or PvP, didn't find PP interesting/engaging when it is suppose to be a political feature that gets people involved. I don't want to go into the flaws of PP further, because my experience in PP is probably going to make me write a paper on it.

PvP defence is optional for those who wish to engage in it / run through it.

Blockades were very quickly seen to be a non-starter during the Kickstarter / early development phase, with respect to enforcement, given the three game modes, instancing and now other platforms. Blockades would also seem to be one of the types of large player group behaviours that DBOBE dislikes (see his Q&A at EGX:2014).

Indeed, it would be interesting, since people can just utilize the system where FD implement in-game polls and incentive people to participate in it... oh wait...

As a gauge of players, a Forum poll lacks reach (forum members number a relatively small proportion of total sales and there is no link between game ownership and forum account) and verification that voters are actually players.

 

[Fendalton]

There was 680,000 copies of Elite Dangerous sold on steam in 8 months last year.

For active players though, I have seen connection servers numbered from 590 - 690, however not sure what the limit is for these.

I'm OK with the game needing to be able to be solo'd, but there should be more difficult encounters that require you to wing up or hire PvE wing mates.

As it stands, you can passive play this game to reap max rewards.

 

[GluttonyFang]

All players can choose to join an Open access mode where they (subject to the matchmaking system) have the possibility of being instanced with any other player in that mode.

All players affect and experience the same shared galaxy state.

Right, but the issue is that MP is hardly MP other than its most technical description, which is why there are so much complaints.

PvP defence is optional for those who wish to engage in it / run through it.

Right, but many question the point of it when it can all be done without interference, this creates a vicious cycle that leads to no one participating in it in Open. It's quite similar to the dilemma Anthony Downs introduced in his model of rationality and the paradox of voters in a democracy.

Blockades were very quickly seen to be a non-starter during the Kickstarter / early development phase, with respect to enforcement, given the three game modes, instancing and now other platforms. Blockades would also seem to be one of the types of large player group behaviours that DBOBE dislikes (see his Q&A at EGX:2014).

And that attitude changed as we saw in the Hutton incident.

As a gauge of players, a Forum poll lacks reach (forum members number a relatively small proportion of total sales and there is no link between game ownership and forum account) and verification that voters are actually players.

Which is why I implicitly mentioned the need of in-game polls.

 

[relayer]

It's not... and funnily enough, I think the sneaky backdoor gets slammed in their face, if and when the social tools are introduced, without ownership of space. I mean, they'll have to come right out and say it then, won't they?

Sorry, it's late... I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Who would have to "come right out and say it" [assuming you mean ownership of game assets]? Because that point [ownership of in-game assets] has been promoted more than a few times, pushing its head up in this discussion from the "we want guilds" people; about 1 in 2-3 posts start talking about building stations or ports, exchanging in-game currency and all that.

If you meant FD will have to "come right out and say it," they already have, several times, in unequivocally and unambiguous terms "no ownership of in-game assets, ever." If you need to know where those quotes are from, click the links in Jockey's sig.


Otherwise... Clans themselves as a social grouping with tools to foster communications & immersion-stories haven't been objected to. It's all the "well, this would be a start" posts or the straight-out acquisitive posts, which then go on to float the idea of player ownership of in-game assets. Bases. Space stations. "Owned" sectors. Then on and on, down the same path that many games have gone before, to their detriment.

 

[Roybe]

You may be thinking of the first poll on the topic. The most recent is in this thread and it was about 2:1 in favour of Guilds (albeit with some help from advertising of the poll on another website)

From that, it could be inferred that support for Guilds has actually dropped - from c.66% to c. 53%....

I would posit that is occurring because people are losing interest in playing the game currently or have left the forums for other pursuits, at a minimum...particularly those that are interested in functional, social experiences within an advertised multiplayer game.

 

[relayer]

I'd suggest just ignoring any suggestion anyone has about player-owned assets from this point on. You've already won that argument - so why bother continuing to argue the point?

Because it keeps coming up like bad food? The discussion is about Clans in E|D. There are two different sorts taking turns in this thread. One is the "all we want are social tools" group and the other is "we want to own and patrol our own space and assets."

No one in this thread is objecting to social organizing tools in-game. It is position #2 that is met with folded arms and a "no way" position, backed by FD's official position on this matter numerous times.

I'll continue to meet such suggestions with counter-posts of my own.

 

[relayer]

It's funny what happens when you include the whole quote. The line of thought suddenly makes sense!

Yeah, kinda like you bypassed my comment wherein I said "[Clan] people have asked for ownership of rights many times; read the thread"

So what you have in the quote box is not addressing my point. OK.

That being said, I would love for some clan-like mechanics to make it into the game in the way mentioned above. Do I want to see station/space control type mechanics? No. What my team does as a group should not effect a normal player's ability to traverse through systems where our faction has control of the system. It should not affect a persons ability to land at any station unless it's a direct player blockade, in which case switching to solo/pg and laughing at them over a stream as you dock is completely warranted.

So... who is objecting to this type of addition to the game? No one! It's reasonable, even desieable to have this type of in-game community-fostering. It's pretty evenly distributed on both sides.

The problem is that some players really want Clan/Guild ownership of in-game assets. Players like me do not, for the reasons stated by many before: player ownership of in-game assets has broken many games. No one is objecting to social tools.

 

[Garbarrage]

Sorry, it's late... I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Who would have to "come right out and say it [assuming you mean ownership of game assets]? Because that point, ownership of in-game assets, has been pushing its head up in this discussion from the "we want guilds" people; about 1 in 2-3 posts start talking about building stations or ports, exchanging in-game currency and all that.

If you meant FD will have to "come right out and say it," they already have, several times, in unequivocally and unambiguous terms - no ownership of in-game assets, ever." If you need to know where those quotes are from, click the links in Jockey's sig.


Otherwise... Clans themselves as a social grouping with tools to foster communications & immersion-stories haven't been objected to. It's all the "well, this would be a start" posts or the straight-out acquisitive posts, which then go on to float the idea of player ownership of in-game assets. Bases. Space stations. "Owned" sectors. Then on and on, down the same path that many games have gone before, to their detriment.

It's not the "we want guilds" people pushing for player owned assets though. It's the "we want mandatory ooen" people attempting to use the guilds ticket to further their agenda. My point is, that it won't work. In this game, because of solo and group and their interaction with the BGS, it would be possible to introduce full clan functionality without player owned assets. And if they did, the "we want to own space" people would have one less step on their perceived ladder to ownage of space.

 

[Roybe]

Yeah, kinda like you bypassed my comment wherein I said "[Clan] people have asked for ownership of rights many times; read the thread"

So what you have in the quote box is not addressing my point. OK.





So... who is objecting to this type of addition to the game? No one! It's reasonable, even desieable to have this type of in-game community-fostering. It's pretty evenly distributed on both sides.

The problem is that some players really want Clan/Guild ownership of in-game assets. Players like me do not, for the reasons stated by many before: player ownership of in-game assets has broken many games. No one is objecting to social tools.

Your personal opinions do not matter....or your desires! The devs have clearly stated that ownership of assets on anything past a personal level will not be added to the game. This is just as basic as the modes, or the PvE battles over trophies. It will not be changed. I know you are reiterating the devs stance...but by stating it as your desire...means that the discussion with these people will continue.

All you can do is try to explain to them the devs have said 'No!' and that they are adamant about 'no ownership'...then let the people vent all they want. At that point they are just being silly.