Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[Robert Maynard]

I'm sorry, but referring to the DDF is a waste of time. Half of it has not been implemented, and never will be. That information is almost two years out of date, and designs change.

The game is how it is, PVP is an obvious, important part of the open server. The regularity of these discussions clearly indicate that there is a lot of it going on, and it's not going away any time soon. What exactly is your argument? That people should not do it because the DDF -- which 90% of the current player base has never read, and never will .. said we probably shouldn't?

Possibly - however bits of it do seem to surface from time to time.

The point of my response was to refer to aspects of the game and its design which may possibly explain why:

the terrible PVP/world mechanics of ED are so min-numbingly un-engaging.

to some players. It was not designed from the ground up as a PvP focussed game - if it had been then I would expect that there would only have been one game mode. PvP is certainly possible but is not specifically rewarded.

 

[Garbarrage]

Is it not somewhat silly that you can set up a minor faction, you can name it, roughly decide it's ethos and back story, even create the leader, and then thousands of NPC members are created that can fly the flag for this faction, but those who care about it cannot? Those who are asked to be it's custodians are not even identifiable as members?

I think that this ability alone would go a long way to connecting players to the BGS/Minor Faction mechanic. If FD went ahead and decided on their version, and put in the QoL changes, particularly if done in one shot or at least quick succession, it may well put an end to the demand for player owned assets. A sort of iron clad statement along the lines of "This is as much as you're getting...".

 

[Mohrgan]

If PVP was not an intended core part of the open world game, there would be

a) much harsher consequences for killing people in 'secure' space
b) a PVP flag or opt-out option more advanced than 'solo mode'
b) no interdictors
c) no hatchbreakers
d) an entire gameplay mechanic devoted to practicing PVP (CQC)
e) an entire gameplay mechanic devoted to territorial warfare that would be 100% pvp-centric if it wasn't for peoples abilities to 'grind fest it' in solo mode (PP)

next..

Answers:

a) The penalties have to balance between deterrence and exploit. Make bounties to high, people sell them. In addition, FD (and many players) don't want the criminal element to disappear completely, BH'ers need some targets too.

b) The Matchmaking system in the game is perfectly suited to offer players the opportunity to control who they play with. There is but one game server, and all play through it. The matchmaking code allows each player their own choice. A Flagging system does not do that. IT just shields your character from attack. It offers no help in ditching annoying players that invade your game time.

c & c) Both of those tools are just as valid in PvE as in PvP. There are missions that ask one to pull NPC's from SC, and still others that ask players to remove a specific bit of cargo from an NPC.

d) I don;t think that CQC is designed for practice. That is what the combat training tutorials are about. CQC, in my view, is a venue for players to compete against each other in a controlled, balanced environment.

e) I don't see how stopping people from playing in Open would make PP any more PvP oriented. Even with that change your still faced with a system that rewards PvE activities ,and specifically does not reward PvP encounters. Even the much flaunted 'Stop them from undermining' gambit is not sufficient to spin PP into a PvP oriented pass time.

 

[MottiKhan]

@smiths121 - I think the player faction situation in Anlave is pertinent to this thread or at the very least, related.

As you can see by my sig, I'm a fed as well. And a loyal supporter, I might add. I believe that having a live player faction in Anlave is what's best for the Federation. I've seen the Hudson remarks saying that they'll leave Contrail alone and that they like the group and in the next breath, call for a battle against them.

Hudson has no honor in that regard. Contrail has honor and are just trying to survive. I'd think you, like me, would want to help them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If PVP was not an intended core part of the open world game, there would be

d) an entire gameplay mechanic devoted to practicing PVP (CQC)
e) an entire gameplay mechanic devoted to territorial warfare that would be 100% pvp-centric if it wasn't for peoples abilities to 'grind fest it' in solo mode (PP)

next..

d) an out of game pure-play PvP mode with no consequence.
e) Powerplay is a perfect example of PvP not being an intended core part of the game. Powerplay does not reward PvP at all. It is accessible from all game modes by design.

 

[EUS]

So far, according to everything I've read from the clan_people themselves is that the content they will bring to the game will be benign. One of the things the clannies claim to want is to have stations to call home. Well, that's already done, so enjoy!
Now they want little tags, and better comms? I don't have a problem with that.
However, the door must close on the ability to control any in game asset other than the individual's space ship, including, but not limited to regions of space, stations, landing privileges, basically anything that is not benign to the game.

 

[Louella]

Materials should still has a limit of 300 on each player, but one can visit a station to withdraw more if they have the access right. And no guild in the right mind will open it up to just anyone, so people still have to earn it.

Deflection. That's not addressing the point.

The point I made:

The materials one for example. Player A is mining materials on a planet. Player B benefits from those materials, on account of being in the same guild. Player B thusly has access to the extra damaging ammunition, without necessarily having to collect any materials themselves. This puts them in a somewhat better position than Player C, who mines their own ammunition.
So those things have to be thought about very carefully.

As implemented right now, the materials are hen's teeth, and involve a fair amount of prospecting on multiple stellar bodies. It would seem that the intention is that the bonus ammunition is supposed to be very, very scarce, and best employed at a key moment to get the jump on someone, or to blat a target that is attempting to charge FSD.

If you can share materials in a guild then Player A mines materials, is in the same guild as Player B. Player B can withdraw materials, to make the +X%damage ammunition.
Whereas Player C mines their own materials.

So, allowing materials sharing within a guild, tends to promote the routine use of the +X% damage ammunitions, and makes guild effort more powerful than non-guild effort by a substantial margin.

Proliferation of the bonus ammunition affects the meta-game in many ways, for example:
It increases the size of ship that could be shot down with a single clip of ammunition - affecting how viable smaller ships are in pvp, who might be able to escape or evade while the other ship is reloading.
It alters the effective difference between weapon types - Lasers have no bonuses from synthesis, so bonus ammunition proliferation is effectively a nerf to lasers.

There are also social effects, e.g. there are some players, whose reaction times are worse than others, who, rather than being an inaccurate extra gun in a combat situation, would provide more benefit to the group as a whole by mining rocks on planets. They might feel pressured into doing that, instead of something else that they might enjoy more, even if they're not very good at it.

Allowing players to sell materials on the market somehow, and for other players to buy materials, would mean that non-guild players aren't necessarily at a disadvantage compared to guild players, but that would still mean that the bonus ammunition is a lot more common than before, affecting the meta-game. Which is a change from what appears to be the intention.

So being able to share materials in a guild is not a simple thing.

And that's why those things have to be thought about very, very carefully. Unintended consequences and all that.

 

[JosiahD]

You may interpret it as being a stance of denial, and others see it as gradual movement toward the acceptance of "guild gameplay."

As for FD's current stance on the issue, I don't think they've made any recent commentary about it, so I wouldn't go ahead and speak for them.

And like I said, I don't really care about the advanced mechanics of clan gameplay right now since this game needs more fundamental patching and fixing before embracing something more complex.

Except that every time I've seen the question of guild mechanics raised in a Q&A it's been a flat out 'no', or at best a response along the lines of 'it's not on the table right now but we'll consider it'. Admittedly, I've probably not seen every Q&A response on the matter, but that's all I've seen when it's been asked.
.
Some might choose to view things as a 'gradual movement toward the acceptance of guild gameplay'. But the truth is it's the other way around. Frontier considered the pros and cons of guild gameplay, discussed it within the DDF if I'm not mistaken, learned from the experiences of players in games like Eve and other MMOs - and decided against guild gameplay from the start, at least in the territorial control and asset ownership sense. It's not the direction they wanted for Elite. If anything, that's Frontier moving away from the acceptance of guild gameplay, not toward it. They've compromised in a fashion through Powerplay and player created/affiliated NPC factions. But it would be inconvenient for guild gameplay proponents to accept that Frontier actually carefully considered the pros and cons of guild gameplay (in the fashion of other games).......and rejected it for THIS game (thus far).
.
For mine, the essence of this whole argument is:
.
- Frontier deliberately and in a well considered manner elected to exclude guild mechanics
- some don't agree with that design decision
- others do
- those who don't have seemingly rejected every response from Frontier on it to date (at least that I've seen)
- threads like this only serve to reinforce Frontier's decision by continually demonstrating just how contentious (and therefore risky) it would be to reverse their position
- there's no promise of getting any improved guild tools any time soon (although I do suspect we'll eventually get some tools like guild chat and such)
- Frontier have already attempted a form of compromise, if you will, in the form of Powerplay and player created/affiliated NPC (that's NPC) minor factions that can be 'managed' in a fashion and advanced through largely PvE play
- that's still not good enough for some people, so threads like this keep getting raised, so we keep flogging the dead horse over and over
- (back to the 5th bullet point above)

 

[Deadspin]

Total fantasy. PvP, especially Open World PvP has died in just about every game I've played, short of the games based on Maps & PvP (Mechwarrior, WoT, ect.). PvP servers get imbalanced populations as players seek to hide in numbers. PvP zones or queues are dead, with players begging others to queue so the interested can engage. There is nothing modern about PvP at all.

I don;t even know where you get this statement. E: D is the advanced wedge of gaming, and your desire to follow the trends set out by game-dinosaurs of the recent past, is holding back progress. A flexible game that allows all who play to find the experience they are seeking is the most forward thinking game design I can imagine. I see your views as backwards and pandering to the PvP mentality. That mentality, not the risk to my credit balance, is responsible for my move out of open.

The entire last paragraph of your post is some childish attempt to insult players that see thing differently to you. The saving grace is that it is old, worn and trite, just like your argument that some fans are trying to relive glory days. Your post is one of total fantasy.

1: When talking about the backsliding called for by the old guard, I'm talking about the fact that nearly every modern game seeks to put players together in a multiplayer environment. What did the Skyrim fanbase call for and build themselves (prior to ESO)? Multiplayer Skyrim. What did the Fallout fanbase call for and (attempt to) build themselves, multiplayer Fallout. If this were a true MMO in the sense that we were faced with thousands of other players every time we ventured out of a station, I could get behind strict pve/pvp rules. However, it's not. The calls for shadowbans, outright bans and massive penalties to players who get their enjoyment from other player interaction, whether it be based in RP or killing for fun, are ridiculous. How do you deal with a griefer? You band together with people and chase them out of the system.
.
2: I never made a statement, I made a generalization.
.
3: Frontier built in a "flexible game that allows all who play to find the experience they are seeking" by giving players the ability to choose between Open, solo and group. ED is not the advanced wedge of anything, it's a great space sim on a damn good engine with a beautiful world. Mobius built on this flexibility by building a bastion for PvE players. So why are people still complaining?
.
4: I pander to the Open mentality. I don't seek out PvP, I don't live for it. In fact, I tend to shy away from it whenever possible because I like not being blown apart. Will I still fight back if I cannot escape? Sure, it's one of the dangers of playing in Open and for the life of me I can't fathom why everyone else is so afraid of it; can't fathom how it can be considered a game breaking mechanic to be interdicted and engaged by another player. It paints the picture of those who complain about such things as nothing more than screaming children who are mad because they can't have what they want while others enjoy the game as it is.
.
Now people decry the possibility of a more solid grouping mechanic because erhmagherd they think it's going to potentially promote more pvp? That's absolutely ridiculous. But hey! Let's push to deny a large population of players (As evidenced by the sheer numbers of player factions that have been inserted into the game, not to mention Inara's wing roster, a roster that boasts over 1500 players alone in the first three groups) a very basic QoL tool because we're scared. What kind of logic is that?

 

[Garbarrage]

Except that every time I've seen the question of guild mechanics raised in a Q&A it's been a flat out 'no', or at best a response along the lines of 'it's not on the table right now but we'll consider it'. Admittedly, I've probably not seen every Q&A response on the matter, but that's all I've seen when it's been asked.
.
Some might choose to view things as a 'gradual movement toward the acceptance of guild gameplay'. But the truth is it's the other way around. Frontier considered the pros and cons of guild gameplay, discussed it within the DDF if I'm not mistaken, learned from the experiences of players in games like Eve and other MMOs - and decided against guild gameplay from the start, at least in the territorial control and asset ownership sense. It's not the direction they wanted for Elite. If anything, that's Frontier moving away from the acceptance of guild gameplay, not toward it. They've compromised in a fashion through Powerplay and player created/affiliated NPC factions. But it would be inconvenient for guild gameplay proponents to accept that Frontier actually carefully considered the pros and cons of guild gameplay (in the fashion of other games).......and rejected it for THIS game (thus far).
.
For mine, the essence of this whole argument is:
.
- Frontier deliberately and in a well considered manner elected to exclude guild mechanics
- some don't agree with that design decision
- others do
- those who don't have seemingly rejected every response from Frontier on it to date (at least that I've seen)
- threads like this only serve to reinforce Frontier's decision by continually demonstrating just how contentious (and therefore risky) it would be to reverse their position
- there's no promise of getting any improved guild tools any time soon (although I do suspect we'll eventually get some tools like guild chat and such)
- Frontier have already attempted a form of compromise, if you will, in the form of Powerplay and player created/affiliated NPC (that's NPC) minor factions that can be 'managed' in a fashion and advanced through largely PvE play
- that's still not good enough for some people, so threads like this keep getting raised, so we keep flogging the dead horse over and over
- (back to the 5th bullet point above)

Could you quote a source where there's been a flat out no to this question from FD?

I fail to see how an issue being contentious reinforces either position from FD. Some of what's being asked for is fairly benign, by any stretch of the imagination. The stuff that isn't ie player owned territory, is actually impossible anyway.

 

[Mohrgan]

1: When talking about the backsliding called for by the old guard, I'm talking about the fact that nearly every modern game seeks to put players together in a multiplayer environment. What did the Skyrim fanbase call for and build themselves (prior to ESO)? Multiplayer Skyrim. What did the Fallout fanbase call for and (attempt to) build themselves, multiplayer Fallout. If this were a true MMO in the sense that we were faced with thousands of other players every time we ventured out of a station, I could get behind strict pve/pvp rules. However, it's not. The calls for shadowbans, outright bans and massive penalties to players who get their enjoyment from other player interaction, whether it be based in RP or killing for fun, are ridiculous. How do you deal with a griefer? You band together with people and chase them out of the system.
.
2: I never made a statement, I made a generalization.
.
3: Frontier built in a "flexible game that allows all who play to find the experience they are seeking" by giving players the ability to choose between Open, solo and group. ED is not the advanced wedge of anything, it's a great space sim on a damn good engine with a beautiful world. Mobius built on this flexibility by building a bastion for PvE players. So why are people still complaining?
.
4: I pander to the Open mentality. I don't seek out PvP, I don't live for it. In fact, I tend to shy away from it whenever possible because I like not being blown apart. Will I still fight back if I cannot escape? Sure, it's one of the dangers of playing in Open and for the life of me I can't fathom why everyone else is so afraid of it; can't fathom how it can be considered a game breaking mechanic to be interdicted and engaged by another player. It paints the picture of those who complain about such things as nothing more than screaming children who are mad because they can't have what they want while others enjoy the game as it is.
.
Now people decry the possibility of a more solid grouping mechanic because erhmagherd they think it's going to potentially promote more pvp? That's absolutely ridiculous. But hey! Let's push to deny a large population of players (As evidenced by the sheer numbers of player factions that have been inserted into the game, not to mention Inara's wing roster, a roster that boasts over 1500 players alone in the first three groups) a very basic QoL tool because we're scared. What kind of logic is that?

I read in your response a lack of understanding. A lack of understanding about the No-Cults side of the argument. Fear? You're going to break that one out again? Silliness. My pixels fear no one. I, however fear having to associate with certain elements of the E: D player base. We share different views on these subjects. That is healthy, and the reason why FD created a system with choices.

As far a Cult mechanics, I believe FD should implement the social aspects players have been asking for. I even think 'Tags' would be a great things for those that enjoy joining up. I do, however, continue to argue against Player/Cult owned Assets. I am against the requests calling for the ability for groups to dominate any portion of space. Grouping mechanics, Comms, Tags all good. Let the control of space be filtered through the BSG and leave the territorial disputes to the NPCs.

 

[Deadspin]

Fear? You're going to break that one out again? Silliness. My pixels fear no one. I, however fear having to associate with certain elements of the E: D player base. We share different views on these subjects. That is healthy, and the reason why FD created a system with choices.

I wasn't saying you specifically were afraid of things. Just that it sounds a lot like simple fear that most people shy away from when considering open.

As far a Cult mechanics, I believe FD should implement the social aspects players have been asking for. I even think 'Tags' would be a great things for those that enjoy joining up. I do, however, continue to argue against Player/Cult owned Assets. I am against the requests calling for the ability for groups to dominate any portion of space. Grouping mechanics, Comms, Tags all good. Let the control of space be filtered through the BSG and leave the territorial disputes to the NPCs.

I think we agree here. There are really only a handful of things that I would like to see implemented:

1: The ability to "ally" with a faction much like we currently can do with Power Play factions. So that the faction name shows up in your target info when a basic scan is done. Maybe even so that it shows up on your target icon when viewed by another player, much like the combat rating badge pops up for a few seconds when you lock on to a target. I don't think that [TAGS] on names should be a thing when we have a much simpler option that already exists, to an extent, in game.
2: The ability to control those allied players. I look at this from an administrative standpoint. I don't want any joe-schmo to be able to throw on the faction tag for the player made faction I support so a simple set of administrative controls, to be held by 2-3 players, in order to monitor and assess the members of said faction. No further control. Just who can/can't wear the name.
3: The ability to, from that administrative panel, control which direction the faction expands should said faction reach an expansion state.
.
No control over anything else. No control over space, over stations in a way that would be detrimental to gameplay for non-faction members, etc. We are in agreement there.

 

[Mohrgan]

I wasn't saying you specifically were afraid of things. Just that it sounds a lot like simple fear that most people shy away from when considering open.



I think we agree here. There are really only a handful of things that I would like to see implemented:

1: The ability to "ally" with a faction much like we currently can do with Power Play factions. So that the faction name shows up in your target info when a basic scan is done. Maybe even so that it shows up on your target icon when viewed by another player, much like the combat rating badge pops up for a few seconds when you lock on to a target. I don't think that [TAGS] on names should be a thing when we have a much simpler option that already exists, to an extent, in game.
2: The ability to control those allied players. I look at this from an administrative standpoint. I don't want any joe-schmo to be able to throw on the faction tag for the player made faction I support so a simple set of administrative controls, to be held by 2-3 players, in order to monitor and assess the members of said faction. No further control. Just who can/can't wear the name.
3: The ability to, from that administrative panel, control which direction the faction expands should said faction reach an expansion state.
.
No control over anything else. No control over space, over stations in a way that would be detrimental to gameplay for non-faction members, etc. We are in agreement there.

I have mixed feelings about the control of the players and what the Faction does. I can see having a leadership who has control over enrollment into player groups. I don;t see players needing control over NPC's. You support and better your factions' standing through the mechanics of the BGS. Anything more than that would equate to Culted up players having an advantage over the individual, by getting your fingers into how the NPC's behave.

P.S. On the issue of Fear. That is a specious point of view. Not everyone who leaves Open does so to avoid the risk of facing a re-buy. Even the ones that do are not afraid. I've even read of Non-PvP players, who are veterans with combat experience, leaving Open to avoid PvP. Just remove the Fear card from your deck. It serves no purpose but to bait and as an attempt at insulting others.

 

[Deadspin]

I have mixed feelings about the control of the players and what the Faction does. I can see having a leadership who has control over enrollment into player groups. I don;t see players needing control over NPC's. You support and better your factions' standing through the mechanics of the BGS. Anything more than that would equate to Culted up players having an advantage over the individual, by getting your fingers into how the NPC's behave.

We agree then.

It serves no purpose but to bait and as an attempt at insulting others.

Through how we've been following each other around the forum you haven't figured it out yet? That right there is about 1/4 of my purpose.

 

[Mohrgan]

We agree then.



Through how we've been following each other around the forum you haven't figured it out yet? That right there is about 1/4 of my purpose.

I guess your attempts at humor are not well represented via text. The 'Twisting' does show though.

 

[smiths121]

Good points!

I just did not want to derail the thread with our differences in virtual politics in the way the C.O.N.T.R.A.I.L bug report got derailed. The simple fact that the player group exists in Anlave and is Independent Democracy not Federation Democracy is why I travelled 150LY. I have absolutely no doubt that FD did that on purpose!

Not sure this was the first choice for Contrail - but they are trying to make the best of the system they have been given - full marks to them from me as a player group, had fun dealing with them. Actually the more I think about it, the more an Independent Democracy at Anlave (there are a few Indys around the area) makes for a great political situation.

The simple fact that you and I can take different positions on the same thing and believe we are both the same thing - virtual politics as I call it is part of the emergent game play that the situation has created. This is a good thing. I think a CG would generate more interest (in terms of number of players), but that is an injected event, most players turn it into a grind or mechanical thing. This is something you and I and 100 or so other Cmdrs have invented in our heads, and consider important. It cannot be gamed like a CG it can only be played out for our amusement. It is using the existing BGS mechanics no need for FD to get involved (I'll ignore the last patch that removed Contrail control - I would be down here supporting PAFE if Contrail still had control).

I'm really pro where we are now - NPC guilds, minor faction player groups whatever you want to call them, ownership without control. It generates the good things in Clans, training for new players, some inter group politics - for example Hudson is not entirely united with C.O.N.T.R.A.I.L existing, lone wolfs can have there say using the BGS - whatever the mode. If you are a lone wolf, crap at the player engagement side - chance to learn, otherwise use a different mode. It is all good.

On another note.....

I am also pro the proposition of any player being able to "pledge" to a minor faction. Having come from a group that promoted a minor faction to 6 systems with 3 major active players from a cast of 8, I do not want the concept of player groups limited to big numbers. Part of the reason we are having a rest is we have all got Elite Combat status thanks to the BGS, as a small group I personally think we were lucky we expanded to mostly outposts with small population - we made the last December Newsletter as one of the most influential minor factions - that's great reward for 9 months hard work having to learn as we went along from the Lugh threads. There is a place for the smaller player group - everyone should have the right to shape their chosen home world the way they want.

Frothing Fed hat on....
I agree with your Hudson comments, personally I would like to see the President of Federation Space say "no" to Independence for Anlave a founding member of the Federation, original home to the Fed Fleet. But fellow voter - I agree saying nice things and then shouting the battle cry is not the Fed way (honest) - perhaps you and I should vote Winters - or better still find out what happened to the previous administration, why did Smeaton get assassinated???

Who says the game is empty?

Simon

@smiths121 - I think the player faction situation in Anlave is pertinent to this thread or at the very least, related.

As you can see by my sig, I'm a fed as well. And a loyal supporter, I might add. I believe that having a live player faction in Anlave is what's best for the Federation. I've seen the Hudson remarks saying that they'll leave Contrail alone and that they like the group and in the next breath, call for a battle against them.

Hudson has no honor in that regard. Contrail has honor and are just trying to survive. I'd think you, like me, would want to help them.

 

[MottiKhan]

Good points!

I just did not want to derail the thread with our differences in virtual politics in the way the C.O.N.T.R.A.I.L bug report got derailed. The simple fact that the player group exists in Anlave and is Independent Democracy not Federation Democracy is why I travelled 150LY. I have absolutely no doubt that FD did that on purpose!

Not sure this was the first choice for Contrail - but they are trying to make the best of the system they have been given - full marks to them from me as a player group, had fun dealing with them. Actually the more I think about it, the more an Independent Democracy at Anlave (there are a few Indys around the area) makes for a great political situation.

The simple fact that you and I can take different positions on the same thing and believe we are both the same thing - virtual politics as I call it is part of the emergent game play that the situation has created. This is a good thing. I think a CG would generate more interest (in terms of number of players), but that is an injected event, most players turn it into a grind or mechanical thing. This is something you and I and 100 or so other Cmdrs have invented in our heads, and consider important. It cannot be gamed like a CG it can only be played out for our amusement. It is using the existing BGS mechanics no need for FD to get involved (I'll ignore the last patch that removed Contrail control - I would be down here supporting PAFE if Contrail still had control).

I'm really pro where we are now - NPC guilds, minor faction player groups whatever you want to call them, ownership without control. It generates the good things in Clans, training for new players, some inter group politics - for example Hudson is not entirely united with C.O.N.T.R.A.I.L existing, lone wolfs can have there say using the BGS - whatever the mode. If you are a lone wolf, crap at the player engagement side - chance to learn, otherwise use a different mode. It is all good.

On another note.....

I am also pro the proposition of any player being able to "pledge" to a minor faction. Having come from a group that promoted a minor faction to 6 systems with 3 major active players from a cast of 8, I do not want the concept of player groups limited to big numbers. Part of the reason we are having a rest is we have all got Elite Combat status thanks to the BGS, as a small group I personally think we were lucky we expanded to mostly outposts with small population - we made the last December Newsletter as one of the most influential minor factions - that's great reward for 9 months hard work having to learn as we went along from the Lugh threads. There is a place for the smaller player group - everyone should have the right to shape their chosen home world the way they want.

Frothing Fed hat on....
I agree with your Hudson comments, personally I would like to see the President of Federation Space say "no" to Independence for Anlave a founding member of the Federation, original home to the Fed Fleet. But fellow voter - I agree saying nice things and then shouting the battle cry is not the Fed way (honest) - perhaps you and I should vote Winters - or better still find out what happened to the previous administration, why did Smeaton get assassinated???

Who says the game is empty?

Simon

LOL! If I could rep you again, I would. Yes, Winters would be my choice if it came down to those two.

I'd like to be able to pledge to a minor faction. That would work out quite well for those of us who care about the BGS. For others, maybe not. I don't care about making rank or credits at this point. I would like to see my efforts and the efforts of those like me making a difference. Especially if that difference doesn't get summarily erased by a "fix".

 

[Garbarrage]

I wasn't saying you specifically were afraid of things. Just that it sounds a lot like simple fear that most people shy away from when considering open.



I think we agree here. There are really only a handful of things that I would like to see implemented:

1: The ability to "ally" with a faction much like we currently can do with Power Play factions. So that the faction name shows up in your target info when a basic scan is done. Maybe even so that it shows up on your target icon when viewed by another player, much like the combat rating badge pops up for a few seconds when you lock on to a target. I don't think that [TAGS] on names should be a thing when we have a much simpler option that already exists, to an extent, in game.
2: The ability to control those allied players. I look at this from an administrative standpoint. I don't want any joe-schmo to be able to throw on the faction tag for the player made faction I support so a simple set of administrative controls, to be held by 2-3 players, in order to monitor and assess the members of said faction. No further control. Just who can/can't wear the name.
3: The ability to, from that administrative panel, control which direction the faction expands should said faction reach an expansion state.
.
No control over anything else. No control over space, over stations in a way that would be detrimental to gameplay for non-faction members, etc. We are in agreement there.

How would you feel about a recruitment section of GalNet? Or player owned offices in NPC controlled stations (moreso if/when first person is introduced)? This second one could be a good seller for FD, an easy format to fill with vanity items .

 

[GluttonyFang]

I still love you! No! Don't go!

<3

Bu...but I'm hurt so bad ;-;

My feelingz died for the day ;-;

Wahhhh~~

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

Except that every time I've seen the question of guild mechanics raised in a Q&A it's been a flat out 'no', or at best a response along the lines of 'it's not on the table right now but we'll consider it'. Admittedly, I've probably not seen every Q&A response on the matter, but that's all I've seen when it's been asked.
.
Some might choose to view things as a 'gradual movement toward the acceptance of guild gameplay'. But the truth is it's the other way around. Frontier considered the pros and cons of guild gameplay, discussed it within the DDF if I'm not mistaken, learned from the experiences of players in games like Eve and other MMOs - and decided against guild gameplay from the start, at least in the territorial control and asset ownership sense. It's not the direction they wanted for Elite. If anything, that's Frontier moving away from the acceptance of guild gameplay, not toward it. They've compromised in a fashion through Powerplay and player created/affiliated NPC factions. But it would be inconvenient for guild gameplay proponents to accept that Frontier actually carefully considered the pros and cons of guild gameplay (in the fashion of other games).......and rejected it for THIS game (thus far).
.
For mine, the essence of this whole argument is:
.
- Frontier deliberately and in a well considered manner elected to exclude guild mechanics
- some don't agree with that design decision
- others do
- those who don't have seemingly rejected every response from Frontier on it to date (at least that I've seen)
- threads like this only serve to reinforce Frontier's decision by continually demonstrating just how contentious (and therefore risky) it would be to reverse their position
- there's no promise of getting any improved guild tools any time soon (although I do suspect we'll eventually get some tools like guild chat and such)
- Frontier have already attempted a form of compromise, if you will, in the form of Powerplay and player created/affiliated NPC (that's NPC) minor factions that can be 'managed' in a fashion and advanced through largely PvE play
- that's still not good enough for some people, so threads like this keep getting raised, so we keep flogging the dead horse over and over
- (back to the 5th bullet point above)

Find me the most recent denial of guild system support, it seems that you are depending a lot of dev comment, so show me a citation of a recent one that supports your argument.

 

[GluttonyFang]

As implemented right now, the materials are hen's teeth, and involve a fair amount of prospecting on multiple stellar bodies. It would seem that the intention is that the bonus ammunition is supposed to be very, very scarce, and best employed at a key moment to get the jump on someone, or to blat a target that is attempting to charge FSD.

I don't know how much PvP you do, but bonus ammunition usage isn't scarce at all from what I understand. And trust me, by the time the enemy starts to charge FSD for a high wake, you either can stop it or you can't, bonus damage isn't going to make much of a difference, and this is speaking from experience.

If you can share materials in a guild then Player A mines materials, is in the same guild as Player B. Player B can withdraw materials, to make the +X%damage ammunition.
Whereas Player C mines their own materials.

So... the idea of division of labor is foreign to you...? Why do you think two people working together usually best a person working alone, unless the person working alone is better or equal to two people working together. It's very simple of a concept, Rousseau mentioned this a lot in his writing. Say we have a tough target to take down, if two people work together, the risk/effort is divided, but so is the reward from accomplishing the goal. A person who goes at it alone will shoulder all the risk and effort, and gets the reward alone, if the goal is accomplished. Please don't tell me this concept is somehow foreign to you.

So, allowing materials sharing within a guild, tends to promote the routine use of the +X% damage ammunitions, and makes guild effort more powerful than non-guild effort by a substantial margin.

So you have something against people collaborating? Why would people collaborate when it provides no noticeable benefit over working alone? How is this concept foreign to anyone living in any given civilization?

Proliferation of the bonus ammunition affects the meta-game in many ways, for example:
It increases the size of ship that could be shot down with a single clip of ammunition - affecting how viable smaller ships are in pvp, who might be able to escape or evade while the other ship is reloading.

Hold on a minute, how often do you participate in PvP and how much experience do you have? I've been in more than enough conversations where people theorize without any practical/relevant experience. Ammunition reload/bonus damage has a minimal effect on PvP, and small ships has a limited time of operation in any PvP environment given the SR/HRP/HSL meta.

It alters the effective difference between weapon types - Lasers have no bonuses from synthesis, so bonus ammunition proliferation is effectively a nerf to lasers.

You do know the draw back of kinetic weapons in comparison to lasers... right?

There are also social effects, e.g. there are some players, whose reaction times are worse than others, who, rather than being an inaccurate extra gun in a combat situation, would provide more benefit to the group as a whole by mining rocks on planets. They might feel pressured into doing that, instead of something else that they might enjoy more, even if they're not very good at it.

So... those that want to get into expensive ships that are pressured into doing Robigo smuggling mission despite that they don't like trading is fine and dandy because...?

People are often coerced to do things they don't like in this game, so I don't think this argument says much at all.

Allowing players to sell materials on the market somehow, and for other players to buy materials, would mean that non-guild players aren't necessarily at a disadvantage compared to guild players, but that would still mean that the bonus ammunition is a lot more common than before, affecting the meta-game. Which is a change from what appears to be the intention.

Sure, create a market for it, I think it stimulates a good market mechanic. This material supply helps all players, I'm sure PvE player can appreciate some additional aid in their endavors that can be exchanged with credits.

So being able to share materials in a guild is not a simple thing.

And that's why those things have to be thought about very, very carefully. Unintended consequences and all that.

Never said it was easy.