Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[JosiahD]

Well, it's just a typical guild system in pretty much any MMO:

1. Rank system-

Different rank have different authority/access right.

2. Public Announcement-

Daily message/objective that administrator-ranking members can access to edit/publish for the members of the guild.

3. Guild Storage-

Items shared around, I suppose materials would be a good start, and obviously credits can be deposited, too. Of course, access right has to be granted before access different levels of the storage.

4. Guild Chat-

Chatting between members of the guild that is currently online.

5. Guild member tab in the communication panel-

Easy access to communicating/wing up with members of the guild.

6. Guild tag-

Issued to distinguish themselves.

Then just go from there, these are pretty much the basics.

For the advance stuff, if applicable, create things like guild missions/guild base/starport. Then there's base building, territorial warfare, tag decal uploading, blah blah blah.

FD can probably even monetize off from this...

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

And this is where we get to the nub of what many (not all) proponents of guild content are really after.

Items 1 through 5 are arguably simple enough and admittedly quite harmless.....if they were to stop there. Item 6 - why? Why do guilds feel this ever present desire to identify themselves? Because that is an important element of the next piece - the advanced stuff that you list here, including the territorial warfare. No guild tag and you can't easily try to exert your influence on the surrounding playerbase - no indicator of who just blasted you to pieces because you intruded on 'their space', no easy ID of friend or foe in a PvP engagement.
.
You are right in that it is up to FD as to how much of this they implement. To this point, they have already made that decision - and the decision is to exclude that content. The reason many of us oppose at the very least the notion of the advanced stuff like base building and territorial warfare is NOT because we are afraid of it, as so many rather naively seem to believe/insist - it is simply that we want that to continue to be excluded from THIS particular game, as it was designed and promoted right through kickstarter and forward from there. We want a game that doesn't have to put up with, and balance everything mind you, to cater for all that rubbish to suit, arguably, a minority of the total playerbase. Why can't we simply support the game as proposed, as designed by Frontier themselves - and that excludes guild content? Just because our support for the design as it is currently is at odds with the desire (note: not need) for guild content doesn't make you right/us wrong. Elite: Dangerous doesn't need guild mechanics, at least not beyond items 1 through 5 above. Some might want it, but that's not the same thing.
.
What gets my goat is the constant inability of those who request....nay, insist....on guild content to adapt to the very game design that Frontier has settled on. The umpire has already made their decision gentlemen (and women) and it has been to exclude that content - but some are not happy with that, like petulant children at times, constantly pushing for the mechanics that Frontier has already considered and deliberately chosen to exclude, accusing those who don't want guild content of being 'afraid' of it, of being carebears etc. If one doesn't like or agree with the umpire's decision, well, I'm sorry but that doesn't suddenly make that person or group authoritative on what the game 'should' include. If you don't like the umpire's decision, and Elite doesn't let you play the game they way you want, leave. That's what I, and many others, usually do when we find a game is not providing what we want. Some claim the game won't succeed without guild-based content - if it's not providing what you want, and there's no sign of Frontier changing their stance on guild ownership of assets and territory, why do you stay? Find a game that provides that. Come back later in the unlikely event Frontier changes tack. Alternatively, learn to adapt and accept Elite: Dangerous for what it is - a game that is not principally focused on either PvP or guild-based territorial gameplay. Elite: Dangerous was never going to appeal to all gameplay styles - it just seems that's not good enough for some people who can't help themselves but want to change something to suit themselves, and to heck with everyone else who is already happy with the scope of the game just as it is. And yet, for some reason, it is the latter group that tends to be accused of being selfish, of preventing some people from playing the way they want......

 

[Mortucus]

I voted yes because I like to have the options that come with guild clans ect like tags reputation guild ranks ect ect ect

its funny to me how so many players that vote no seem to think that clans or guilds mean pirates and greifers (such a narrow point of view to have)

there are 400 billion star systems would be nice to find my own pice of paradise

 

[AJW]

Here's my productive observation:
Working together in groups and helping your newer members progress is really a fun part of the game. Whether it's transferring Paladium from a veteran to a newb or running bulk trade in a T-9 to allow the newb to get a wing trade bonus.
I've certainly been "guilty" of transferring tons of cargo to my son to help him get started.
We're now in the 2nd year of Elite: Dangerous. Many of us are approaching "Elite" rank or have already gotten there. New players, especially if they want to play in open, are outclassed at every turn and there needs to be a way to quickly get them up to a more even playing field. I'd rather that be through friendship and cooperation then through any kind of "pay to win" method.

Yup. If group/guild/faction members want to help each other out as individuals, no problem. The problems come when they start asking for special privileges which directly impact the balance of the game. And even more so when such privileges are open to abuse for financial gain. Which was the specific point I was making about the suggestion that 'guilds' should be able to reallocate materials which have direct and immediate consequences in the game. If 'pay-to-win' is bad, 'pay-a-guild-to-win' has to be much, much worse. And I think it is clear from even a passing knowledge of how such game 'guilds' have sometimes operated in the past that even the most optimistic perspective on fundamental human goodness would have to be tempered with the knowledge that it would surely happen again. If people want to club together to play, good. If they want some method to identify each other in-game, fine - I can't see any objection to it (or at least, not any objection that merits serious consideration when one considers just how much emphasis people put on dividing the world into 'us' and 'them', and how futile it is to try to change it). But asking to be given special rights because they club together? Nope. Even ignoring the obvious room for exploitation it provides, it doesn't strike me as remotely a good idea if the objective is to actually to attract new players, rather than drive them away. Clubbing together already brings obvious advantages, and giving a minority faction amongst the existing player base (a player base which of course already has the advantage of experience and 'grind' over newcomers) extra perks can only make the game less attractive. FD are in this for the long term, and that means looking to expand the player base, rather than acceding to the immediate demands of a vocal minority. This game seems to have attracted a much broader demographic spread than most, and I'd hazard a guess that it has done so because the developers have made it clear that they want to encourage as many styles of play as they can, and that they have no intention of favouring one over the other. If 'guilds' want to argue for things which assist them without disadvantaging others, and without skewing the balance of the game to suit their personal preferences, fine. But asking to have rights that others don't? no way. Not going to sell more games. Not going to happen...

 

[GluttonyFang]

Fold

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.

 

[Jaiotu]

I voted yes because I like to have the options that come with guild clans ect like tags reputation guild ranks ect ect ect

its funny to me how so many players that vote no seem to think that clans or guilds mean pirates and greifers (such a narrow point of view to have)

there are 400 billion star systems would be nice to find my own pice of paradise

"Guilds" and "clans" already exist and have existed in the game since it was it beta. The moment two players discover that they enjoy playing in the same instance and coordinating actions together the game grew its first "clan". The Crimson State Group's concerted effort to turn Lugh away from the Federation to an Independent system was the actions of a guild. Code. EIC. These groups have existed for ages and will continue to exist in the game regardless of whether or not Frontier makes being a member easier to identify. If nothing else Guild tags will help players trying to avoid bad situations because they'll be able to see immediately if a player is aligned with a group that carries a negative reputation.

 

[Varrag]

Yes.

Player clans and associated clan-oriented gameplay features could be a reason for me to start logging into the game again. I haven't played it for weeks.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Fold

Ah, is that why the certain individuals will have "god-like powers?"

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140036&p=2144995&viewfull=1#post2144995

Dividing between "us" and "them"?

Didn't you say you read the threads on this forum thoroughly? We don't need guild tags to do that, the community already ripped itself apart over and over into millions of pieces, I thought it's obvious enough. And now some attempt to restore some collaboration is heavily criticized for the same criticism of Anti-federalist against the Federalist in the US?

What makes you dictate that the future of this game will be more anti-social oriented instead of allowing players to congregate as the population increase? If anything the trend so far has been disproving that idea.

This game didn't "seem" to attract a large audience, it most likely intended to attract a large audience to bring in more revenue considering the almost perpetual state of player-base fragmentation.

I hope I don't have to go into the falsity of equality of modes in a principle sense again, since there's another thread for it and I already argued for it...

What makes you think people can't form guilds of their own to obtain any "benefit" they want? It's like telling people about equality of opportunity and some people really dislike going to school and obtaining an education and expect to have much of a chance to earn the same wage as someone who did.

Before you question the parallel, the goal one sets for oneself in ED can be anything. So if people congregate to have a goal they want to accomplish as a collective, why should anyone want to stop them?

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Not quite - Wings were discussed as "player alliances" in the DDF in the "Player Groups" final proposal:

In addition to the groups presented above a player can be a part of an Alliance with other players. This is a separate entity that operates within the boundaries of whatever group the players are in:

• A player can only ever be in a single alliance at a time
• Alliances allow players to indicate trust between themselves so they:
  • Can freely jettison and pick up cargo between themselves
  • Can fire upon each other without criminal implications
  • Gain the same criminal fine/bounty if one or more other members commits a crime
    • This only occurs if the player is in the same vicinity as the player committing the crime
  • Have the ability to slave hyperdrive systems together to make travel easier
  • Get matched as a whole during slaved hyperspace travel and if not possible spawn in their own instance at a location rather than splitting the alliance up
• Alliances in the all players group allow those in the alliance to come across other human players as normal except the game is explicitly trying to keep the alliance together when they arrive at the same location through match-making
  • This is in addition to the normal preference system and operates by giving a much higher weighting to alliance members when determining preferences over friends for example
• Alliances in a private group would only meet other players in that private group
  • Depending on the size of the group, players may typically be in an alliance with everyone else in the private group but multiple alliances can exist in a larger private group if desired
• Creating an alliance is handled exactly the same way as creating a private group with the caveat that anyone in the group can invite other players (including non-friend players) into the alliance and no one is the leader
  • In the all players group any player can be invited into the alliance by any alliance member
  • In a private group only the players in the private group can be invited into an alliance by alliance members
  • Players can vote to kick an alliance member out of the alliance
    • After a set time limit the vote is closed and the majority is taken to decide the outcome unless all members have already voted or the required number of votes is reached
  • Players can leave freely of their own accord
• Any criminal status or reputation earned as a consequence of other alliance members behaviour is kept after leaving an alliance

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yes.

Player clans and associated clan-oriented gameplay features could be a reason for me to start logging into the game again. I haven't played it for weeks.

Question! What would it actually give you that you can't do at the moment without them?

 

[Mohrgan]

Well, it's just a typical guild system in pretty much any MMO:

1. Rank system-

Different rank have different authority/access right.

2. Public Announcement-

Daily message/objective that administrator-ranking members can access to edit/publish for the members of the guild.

3. Guild Storage-

Items shared around, I suppose materials would be a good start, and obviously credits can be deposited, too. Of course, access right has to be granted before access different levels of the storage.

4. Guild Chat-

Chatting between members of the guild that is currently online.

5. Guild member tab in the communication panel-

Easy access to communicating/wing up with members of the guild.

6. Guild tag-

Issued to distinguish themselves.

Then just go from there, these are pretty much the basics.

For the advance stuff, if applicable, create things like guild missions/guild base/starport. Then there's base building, territorial warfare, tag decal uploading, blah blah blah.

FD can probably even monetize off from this...

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

This displays one of my consistent complaints. Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are perfectly acceptable. Get people in touch with each other. Perfect. #3, I'm not in favor of. It's an advantage an individual player cannot make advantage of. Then you casually say. This is just the beginning, before we'll be satisfied we will want Cult only content, Territorial dominance, and spaceports. This is just exactly where the slippery slope argument becomes valid.

None of that 'advanced' stuff sounds good to me. It is the exact type of content I rail against. All of that stuff would disenfranchise the individual. There is no reason player groups can't get in touch better, but there shouldn't be any advantage, or content segregated for a cult mechanic.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Not quite - Wings were discussed as "player alliances" in the DDF in the "Player Groups" final proposal:

I mean in terms of actual implementation of mechanics, FD can technically implement them in any order they wish, but they pushed out a social mechanic quite early on for collaboration.

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

This displays one of my consistent complaints. Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are perfectly acceptable. Get people in touch with each other. Perfect. #3, I'm not in favor of. It's an advantage an individual player cannot make advantage of. Then you casually say. This is just the beginning, before we'll be satisfied we will want Cult only content, Territorial dominance, and spaceports. This is just exactly where the slippery slope argument becomes valid.

None of that 'advanced' stuff sounds good to me. It is the exact type of content I rail against. All of that stuff would disenfranchise the individual. There is no reason player groups can't get in touch better, but there shouldn't be any advantage, or content segregated for a cult mechanic.

And that's fine, just discuss them, don't try to eat other people the moment they introduce something, god forbid, foreign to some's recognition. (Not directed at you)

 

[Varrag]

Question! What would it actually give you that you can't do at the moment without them?

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.

 

[Necronaught]

It would be a great idea to have your clan mates show up in a different colour on your radar. Tech to go faster than the speed of light but no simple friend or foe identification? Also to have a clan chat feature so you can better keep track of your team. You could even have the clan name under your CMDR name. If you don't like it I'm sure FD would have a feature to switch it off.

Also have a direct voice chat feature like in Arma. So only people within a certain distance can hear you. Again have an option to switch it off.

 

[GluttonyFang]

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.

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*

 

[Robert Maynard]

I mean in terms of actual implementation of mechanics, FD can technically implement them in any order they wish, but they pushed out a social mechanic quite early on for collaboration.

Your post seemed to suggest a change of Frontier's stance on all of the points listed. Wings formed part of the design development discussions in the DDF, culminating about 5 months after the end of the Kickstarter and 6 months before the release of Alpha.

It is hardly surprising that Frontier chose to prioritise the inclusion of a basic multi-player feature soon after release of 1.0 - neither is it surprising, given DBOBE's comments on particular behaviour types of large player groups, that Wings are limited to 4 players each (as well as HUD integration).

 

[Mohrgan]

And that's fine, just discuss them, don't try to eat other people the moment they introduce something, god forbid, foreign to some's recognition. (Not directed at you)

Then why quote me?

That's a funny reaction. This is not the 'moment they introduce something'. This thread has been discussing these very ideas. Around and around. Once the pro-clan/cult/guild side smells a compromise, it is always finished up with: 'Then you can add all the other stuff we talked about'.

FD have demonstrated that they intend to follow a different path with player groups. I am grateful for that. Filtering all the player interaction through the BGS, as a neutral moderator, is brilliant. All that is needed are the tools to organize in game. Cosmetic stuff sounds great to me. But, you can expect push back on the oft mentioned perks player groups clamor for.

 

[Stigbob]

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.

In short control over players and territory. Something FD have tried to avoid as it's not as popular with the controlled as it is with the controllers.

 

[Mercy Killing]

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.

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?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Your post seemed to suggest a change of Frontier's stance on all of the points listed. Wings formed part of the design development discussions in the DDF, culminating about 5 months after the end of the Kickstarter and 6 months before the release of Alpha.

It is hardly surprising that Frontier chose to prioritise the inclusion of a basic multi-player feature soon after release of 1.0 - neither is it surprising, given DBOBE's comments on particular behaviour types of large player groups, that Wings are limited to 4 players each (as well as HUD integration).

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

The restriction of the wing count can be understood to be accommodating for the instancing limit in terms of how many players can practically exist at the same place.

A wing of 10 is unlikely to meet another wing of 10 due to instancing. (Anchor wing is another story)

 

[GluttonyFang]

Then why quote me?

That's a funny reaction. This is not the 'moment they introduce something'. This thread has been discussing these very ideas. Around and around. Once the pro-clan/cult/guild side smells a compromise, it is always finished up with: 'Then you can add all the other stuff we talked about'.

FD have demonstrated that they intend to follow a different path with player groups. I am grateful for that. Filtering all the player interaction through the BGS, as a neutral moderator, is brilliant. All that is needed are the tools to organize in game. Cosmetic stuff sounds great to me. But, you can expect push back on the oft mentioned perks player groups clamor for.

You were the closest person that seem relatively civil to me, be proud .-.

Just don't bag all player groups into the same stereotype. I personally don't see the need for the advance mechanics, yet. Since the game itself needs a lot of fundamental patching.

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

Fold

Sorry, but unlike you, I actually have respect for the moderating team. Have fun talking to yourself.

Edit:

In case you haven't read:

No Abusive or Disrespectful Behaviour
The following forum rules are in place to promote the Frontier forums as a safe, friendly, and welcoming place for the community. Discussions and debates are greatly welcomed. However, not at the expense of common sense and decency, as exemplified by the list below.

You agree to not:

• Be insulting to any person via obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory comments via the means of private messages, public messages and visitor messages in order to bait, harass, and lure other users into responding. This is also known as trolling or flame-baiting.
• Partake in personal arguments with other members of the community on the Frontier forums. If you have problems with other members either resolve your issues in private via PM, or use the forums "Ignore" featurelocated here ( https://forums.frontier.co.uk/profile.php?do=ignorelist ).
• Promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, age or other criteria that offends other users.