While the devs have stated that they cannot support that many players in one instance at its current state... That does not mean that won't change in the future. Hardware is being developed rapidly and effectively. If someone so happens to create new technology for a super server, there's no one here who can tell you whether or not the devs would use that technology or not. It's not possible now, but it can be in the future. It's certainly still worth discussing.
Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future
- Thread starter dementia
- Start date
I don't know if clans or guilds is the answer, but this game is advertised as some kind of mmo. They need to start adding tools that allow like-minded players to get together.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that the game has been designed to use a P2P / Server-Lite architecture, it is the quality / speed / ping times of consumer broadband connections that would need to improve to permit higher numbers of players in an instance.
Bear in mind that each player in an instance is connected to every other player (plus the server) so there are N² connections per instance (where N is the number of players in the instance). For the current hard limit of 32, that's 512 connections - 496 player to player connections plus 16 connections to the server. Were that limit to double, the number of connections required would quadruple to 2,048. The chance of getting 512 decent connections in an instance is low enough (I've only ever seen about 14 to 16 players in an instance) already.
Unless player issued system permits are introduced or something similar, there is no restriction to Cmdr accessing any space other than major faction issued permits as far as I am aware, so I don't know what is the fear here really.
Their vision of having no player groups at all in this game did not work out in the end. Player groups have formed regardless, even if they're denied any ingame tools at all. It was folly to expect this to work to begin with. Many groups arrived pre-formed due to players already knowing each other from previous games and wanting to keep it up. It's pretty much mandatory if you regularly want to engage in wing activity, as the game completely lacks _any_ sort of grouping functions whatsoever. You can't even talk to random players unless they're in the same instance.
The usual arguments against this type of functionality are dishonest. Groups only exist to grief? Those that are already here seem to do that perfectly well without group functions. How a shared chat or tag would improve their ability to gank however is never explained by those who bring out this argument.
No one forces you to join one, you can play perfectly well just on your own, as solo mode proves more than enough.
Or also "in 2013 Braben once said..." argument. He said many things that are today obviously not true anymore. Just look at the controlling faction of Eravate or Kappa Fornacis. They're in.
It really seems to boil down to denying others for the sake out of saying "no" because they're not interested in it themselves. Which I honestly think is one seriously grumpy attitude to have.
The poll is obviously loaded. I wonder if those who a few pages said "the poll sides with me! No guilds! no corps!" have now properly adjusted their attitude given it's currently 222 out of 432 in favor? Or are they the type of person to cherry pick arguments in favor of their opinion and dismiss and ignore arguments against it?
The usual arguments against this type of functionality are dishonest. Groups only exist to grief? Those that are already here seem to do that perfectly well without group functions. How a shared chat or tag would improve their ability to gank however is never explained by those who bring out this argument.
No one forces you to join one, you can play perfectly well just on your own, as solo mode proves more than enough.
Or also "in 2013 Braben once said..." argument. He said many things that are today obviously not true anymore. Just look at the controlling faction of Eravate or Kappa Fornacis. They're in.
It really seems to boil down to denying others for the sake out of saying "no" because they're not interested in it themselves. Which I honestly think is one seriously grumpy attitude to have.
The poll is obviously loaded. I wonder if those who a few pages said "the poll sides with me! No guilds! no corps!" have now properly adjusted their attitude given it's currently 222 out of 432 in favor? Or are they the type of person to cherry pick arguments in favor of their opinion and dismiss and ignore arguments against it?
Last edited:
Ohhh that's interesting.. So basically our internet companies are slackin with the inventions!
Last edited:
This I would have to agree with...at one point even FD said that pads may have someone sitting on it when you needed the pad on the way stations...blockades can take many forms...players working on emergent game play...a group trying to work within the legitimate confines of the simulatioins. its a part of ED and we have to work with it....part of the challenge...no different than if your station is quarantined and the ship you want is in that station...you kinda stuck....only difference is the what is causing it.
No sir the game is not advertised as some kind of MMO...it has an online universe that is not the same thing...the MMO community has made large jumps in logic on what ED is...it is a living universe that has MMO traits...but not strictly an MMO but rather a world that is affected by all modes of play...whether playing in solo, group or open...its the medium of interaction...the tools for groups and or likeminded folks are already available....you just don't get to control a chat tab, or certain aspects of the game that might cause additional problems....gotta look at ripple effects of differing actions...by being able to have player factions...you get to align with something....missions are generated for said faction...you begin to garner influence...eventually maybe getting to spread out...eventually becoming a power...the difference is...you are not as in control...but it also means that there are ways around that for other faction groups to....there have been a lot of debate on this...folks ...FD didn't make any promises like this nor did they advertise this...they have given us more than what was promised....to actually have a faction that one gets to personally have something to do with is pretty awesome and thus makes it personal to said individual or group of individuals...why does it have to be like every other game? let it be different that's part of its allure.
EVE as some like to refer to had corps...some helpful...some not so much and caused ...problems to say the least...arguments for and against have some validity...but and this is only an opinion...not all want clans/guilds...for whatever reason...that does mean that everyone does not mean just one set of folks...or the folks that fall somewhere in between the 2 polar sides. Letting FD develop the game in their desired image is what should be done...for those that had preconceived notions as to who is doing what...rethink it...FD is the creator and developer...one that got backed based on what they envisioned...support it or don't is up to the masses...I'm gonna keep having fun and enjoying what it does have....ill waste time on the don't when it really matters to me I suppose ...like if it breaks and I can't fly or fight or explore or make money or help my chosen faction.
Fly safe CMDR's
Elite: Dangerous is a space adventure, trading, and combat simulator that is the fourth release in the Elite video game series. Piloting a spaceship, the player explores a realistic 1:1 scale open world galaxy based on the real Milky Way, with the gameplay being open-ended. The game is the first in the series to attempt to feature massively multiplayer gameplay, with players' actions affecting the narrative story of the game's persistent universe, while also retaining single player options. It is the sequel to Frontier: First Encounters,[8] the third game in the Elite series, released in 1995.
That's the game description from the wiki by the way.^^^^
Last edited:
I know My point was that FD is creating a system that is maintaining the freedom of players who like to form up, and those that don;t. Currently I am not afraid of player groups impacting my travels. If the full suite of requested Guild/Clan/Cult features is implemented this would change. I am answering the plurality of the player groups requests, not just the ones on your mind.
The above is completely not the case. Many of the requested features the player group side of things are perfectly reasonable. Better Comms, Tags, the social stuff, has little to no opposition. Not all groups want to grief. We can all get behind that. The struggle revolves around the full set of features to be realized. There are some requests that, in the total of the thread, should be fought against. Player owned/control of assets should be avoided. Changes that allow for domination of system space should be avoided.
The Pro-Group side should develop a coherent list of features. Then we can move off of the subjects we agree on. Ans we won't have to face ridiculous characterizations as above.
That is incorrect. From the game's Steam page:
"Elite: Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic, bringing gaming’s original open world adventure to the modern generation with a connected galaxy, evolving narrative and the entirety of the Milky Way re-created at its full galactic proportions. "
Last I checked, MMO = massively multiplayer online.
It says that in the game's description. You just proved my point and I don't understand how some of you are under the impression it's not an MMO. Wishful thinking ?
32 players maximum in one instance does not an MMO make.
Well, then someone should let FD know that so they can stop advertising it as such.
Or players can stop being lazy and actually read up on what they are purchasing.
Regardless - Elite IS an MMO - it just happens to fall outside of the norms of casual MMO players.
Last edited:
Or the company that makes the game can remove the "massively multiplayer" from their front page where most people read about the game before buying it.
I can do this all day.
I think we've got a little misunderstanding here, mate. I was quoting that bit from Steam to counter a point by Reaper99 saying the game is not advertised as an MMO, when it obviously is.
32 max players is not a MMO, and players shouldn't have to investigate the claims of a developer. There's comes a time when the responsibility falls on the product maker and calling this an MMO as listed on steam is a perversion of the truth. You are connected to a large population with regard to the background simulation, but that might as well a web based game for all its value as a MMO feature.