Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future

[relayer]

I'm pointing out the flaw in your point: People have asked for station ownership features completely separately from any conversation about guilds/clans. They will probably continue to do so - even if the mooted clan features are implemented because they genuinely believe that will enhance the game. But the two feature sets do not go hand-in-hand.

No disagreement. I am not the one conflating "clan/guild powers" with ownership of in-game assets or some nebulous position with specifics to be discussed "later."

Only FD get to decide what goes in or out the game.

Again, no disagreement.

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

In this thread I argued against guilds/clans because I felt player owned commercial structures should not be controlled by players. I got told, no one is arguing for that, we just want better comms and organisational guild structures. And I feel there's much merit to that request.

A couple of pages on, I get told: of course player owned structures need to be included. Every MMO does this, so why wouldn't Elite?

And therein lies the nut of the debate - "what clans/groups mean for the game mechanics." As you mentioned (and I seconded) it always seems to devolve down to a monetary or ownership of assets argument. Generally people call this (laughingly) "feature creep." Trying to pin down exactly what mechanics are being proposed or supported turns into an eel-wrestling match.

 

[relayer]

Not all players are suggesting the same thing or have the same vision; but the focus of the topic isn't about control of assets - it's about clan support.

I disagree. We are collectively trying to detail exactly what "clan support" means, and the answers from one corner all seem to imply ownership & control of in-game assets. As is shown in this thread, that's a huge, wide river. Giving clans carte blanche is just a no-go, as it would be in any other circumstance of addressing a general question to ask for ideas of how the game mechanics would go.

About ownership - the "other games have it" point of view is unoriginal but that doesn't mean that it's not worthy of discussion. Again, the questions could/should be broken apart into desire and format.

This is precisely what people are asking here - "what do you mean by "clan benefits?"
For that we're accused of "hating on clans" or whatever.

 

[Talarin]

I disagree. We are collectively trying to detail exactly what "clan support" means, and the answers from one corner all seem to imply ownership & control of in-game assets. As is shown in this thread, that's a huge, wide river. Giving clans carte blanche is just a no-go, as it would be in any other circumstance of addressing a general question to ask for ideas of how the game mechanics would go.

This is precisely what people are asking here - "what do you mean by "clan benefits?"
For that we're accused of "hating on clans" or whatever.

I think perhaps you are setting the bar too high in your expectations of the discussion. You'll not get a single, coherent answer and I don't think it's reasonable to demand one.

For the purposes of this thread (given the title and the poll options) the nebulous answer is to be expected. People just aren't like that, especially when they are describing something from their imagination and often informed by other various titles they've played. I'd imagine that the game design team within FD has the same issue - albeit better informed by the technical constraints of the game.

The poll would better have been served with a sliding scale of options for clan implementations:

- No clan support at all.
- Social functions only (group management/group chat)
- Social and BGS functions (groups are entities which collectively can affect the BGS e.g. through minor/power/major faction linkage)
- Social, BGS and Asset functions (groups may own or control major game assets)

But it wasn't and I think the mods wouldn't appreciate another poll going up on the topic

If you look back at the various pro-clan statements in the thread, you'll find a wide range and variety of responses to your question (as I outlined in my response to Ziggy). None of them are right, they're just differing opinions of what could be included. Even within the pro-clan forum users there will be disagreement.

Broadly, you'll find many of the responders who are dubious about the idea are actually "pro/ambivalent-with-caveats", like you. There are even people who say that they voted no, but left comments in the thread which fall into that category.

Overall, I have taken away from the thread that some concept of clan support would be accepted, if not welcomed. Of course there will be design and balance questions over implementation. I for one am keen for the idea of clan/minor-faction linkage which has the bonus of introducing stuff for lone/solo players. It might not happen that way, but it seems elegant.

It's probably the most concise we'll get in this thread.

 

[dxm55]

Not to discount the effort involved, as I would expect it to be considerable should such a possibility exist, the continuous passive earnings (i.e. even when all members were offline) is the bit that causes me an issue - effectively being rewarded for not playing the game.

There're no docking fees right now. Fuel prices are negligible, as are repair and rearm costs. Honestly I don't think a station earns very much compared to what it costs to build, especially given actual paying human traffic. Over a week, a station will probably bring in less than a single bounty off a Dangerous DBX.

As for what the credits could be used for; well, if players shouldn't be rewarded for sitting around, then perhaps it can go to a pool for more station upgrades. Or paying for NPC police ships patrolling outside. Who knows?

 

[dxm55]

Yep. But for discussion's sake it's rather important to specify which flavour someone is arguing in favour or against.

In this thread I argued against guilds/clans because I felt player owned commercial structures should not be controlled by players. I got told, no one is arguing for that, we just want better comms and organisational guild structures. And I feel there's much merit to that request.

A couple of pages on, I get told: of course player owned structures need to be included. Every MMO does this, so why wouldn't Elite?

It's more like "Why not have player owned assets?" than "of course player owned structures need to be included."
The problem is that those who are vehemently opposed to it simply react violently to anything mentioned about it.

Of course the basic infrastructure for clan play would be something to facilitate better organization and private communications for the clan. Clan players can now talk to each other, and they can get together in game.

But why are these people gathering together for?
What will they gain out of it that they can't already via in-game friend or voice comms.... or if I find that too cumbersome, simply get TeamSpeak?

If there's no common goal to achieve, and everybody only earns their own credits, then this feature would be shallow.

 

[Asp Explorer]

But why are these people gathering together for?
What will they gain out of it that they can't already via in-game friend or voice comms.... or if I find that too cumbersome, simply get TeamSpeak?

If there's no common goal to achieve, and everybody only earns their own credits, then this feature would be shallow.

It's fine by me if you want to fly around declaring "We are Guild X" and wanting to chat amongst yourselves. I'd even be OK with you getting a guild tag. I'd even be OK with you having a faction and setting up a "home system" that you can participate in the BGS with. There could even be CG's mentioning your faction, and inviting players to come and boost (or weaken) your factions influence in the BGS. These have happened before, and I am sure many people enjoyed them.

I'd absolutely not be ok with you "owning" station assets in that, or any other, system. And if you expect "common goals" to be gameplay specific to your guild mates that disallow all other players to participate in - I'd expect there would be a lot of upset people.

 

[DaMorgs]

As the 'Leader' of a group I'd like to see a Group Chat option at the very least. As far as owning star ports etc, maybe we could own planetside bases? They are generally much smaller and would no dout have less of an impact on the game as a whole, but you still get your 'home'.

 

[dxm55]

I'd absolutely not be ok with you "owning" station assets in that, or any other, system. And if you expect "common goals" to be gameplay specific to your guild mates that disallow all other players to participate in - I'd expect there would be a lot of upset people.

First of all, what has been discussed here is not about taking over, buying over, or owning any of the existing stations. Just wanted to clarify that.
It's more about first building, and then owning such assets.

Yes, it could be an outpost station. I don't think a Coriolis, Ocellus or any other large station would be feasible.
If not a station, then it could be a small mining installation on a planet (which can be attacked and destroyed by any other players, clanned up or not) which brings in income for the clan.

As for the "common goals" bit... yes, of course it would be specific to clans. Why else then would you join a clan if you could do such activity on your own? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? These goals would be a group effort, not easily achievable, or at all, by a single player.

For eg: Building a mining outpost. A 10 member guild could be able to achieve that in a week, while a single player would take forever to do so. Not so difficult to imagine.

 

[Asp Explorer]

As for the "common goals" bit... yes, of course it would be specific to clans. Why else then would you join a clan if you could do such activity on your own? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? These goals would be a group effort, not easily achievable, or at all, by a single player.

Why restrict gameplay only to guildies? How will content that is only available to guilds be available to those who only ever play on their own? Why should they be shut out of part of the game?

 

[dxm55]

Why restrict gameplay only to guildies? How will content that is only available to guilds be available to those who only ever play on their own? Why should they be shut out of part of the game?

It's not about restricting anything. It's about additional gameplay features/styles achievable only by cooperative efforts.
Just like winging up. Two small ships can take down a larger ship faster and more easily than one. And maybe it's impossible for that single small ship to do so.
And four would absolutely nail him.

Apply that to building a mining outpost. Would you be able to run back and forth repeatedly to build it up while defending it from attack? Not easily, maybe not even.
But it would be a breeze for ten guys. With 7 running cargo, and 3 defending the base.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It's not about restricting anything. It's about additional gameplay features/styles achievable only by cooperative efforts.

For Billy Nomates, who plays Elite from his man-cave hovel, on the fastest wifi connection he can steal from his neighbours (1mb/128k) and can only ever play in Solo - I'd say that is intrinsically restrictive

 

[dxm55]

For Billy Nomates, who plays Elite from his man-cave hovel, on the fastest wifi connection he can steal from his neighbours (1mb/128k) and can only ever play in Solo - I'd say that is intrinsically restrictive

Heh. No choice then, matey. I can't help you get a date if you're not interested in one.

That's how clan play in games generally work. You're free to clan up if you want more, or you can choose to be a Lone Wolf and ignore that part of the game.

It's like crafting/synthesis for me. I don't like it because it feels gamey and 'magic'. Won't use it. Don't care if others do.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Heh. No choice then, matey. I can't help you get a date if you're not interested in one.

That's how clan play in games generally work. You're free to clan up if you want more, or you can choose to be a Lone Wolf and ignore that part of the game.

It's like crafting/synthesis for me. I don't like it because it feels gamey and 'magic'. Won't use it. Don't care if others do.

Where that falls apart though - is you are asking for game content specifically reserved for those who wish to clan up. Those who do not are completely excluded. A separate Guild Mode has been suggested many times previously - not a separate BGS or galaxy, simply a mode where Guild Members can only see other Guild Members (not just their own group of course, but everyone who has signed up to a guild up to instance limits), where members would have their enhanced group comms, visible tabs etc. Personally I think it's a great idea. It's fallen flat on it's face every time, because it's not "Emergent Gameplay" enough for the guildies.

 

[dxm55]

Where that falls apart though - is you are asking for game content specifically reserved for those who wish to clan up. Those who do not are completely excluded. A separate Guild Mode has been suggested many times previously - not a separate BGS or galaxy, simply a mode where Guild Members can only see other Guild Members (not just their own group of course, but everyone who has signed up to a guild up to instance limits), where members would have their enhanced group comms, visible tabs etc. Personally I think it's a great idea. It's fallen flat on it's face every time, because it's not "Emergent Gameplay" enough for the guildies.

I know where you're coming from. But like I said, it's almost a standard thing in MMOs. MMOs were made for player interactions, and guilds, where available, are built on top of that framework. It's a community or co-op type of play, only difference is that it becomes an exclusive members-only community. All you have to do is to join that community if you want to experience that kind of gameplay. Otherwise, you can just carry on being a loner.

It would be logical that some tasks (let's not call them features....) will not be able to be performed by the lone wolf, especially the larger scale ones. And even if you could, it would take considerably more effort and present larger challenges.



Guild Mode? Separate from Open?
That's like saying Solo should be separate from Open (which it is, and yet isn't).
Again, while the players might not see each other, the effects will still be felt by everyone, and there'll still be unhappy "solo but open" players who just plain hate guilds.

Of course, if you're proposing Solo to be "offline", and open and guild to be completely separate and isolated universes, then you may have something there....

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Where that falls apart though - is you are asking for game content specifically reserved for those who wish to clan up. Those who do not are completely excluded. A separate Guild Mode has been suggested many times previously - not a separate BGS or galaxy, simply a mode where Guild Members can only see other Guild Members (not just their own group of course, but everyone who has signed up to a guild up to instance limits), where members would have their enhanced group comms, visible tabs etc. Personally I think it's a great idea. It's fallen flat on it's face every time, because it's not "Emergent Gameplay" enough for the guildies.

Distinction without a difference.

WE all share the same BGS, so whatever we did in the Guild Galaxy would still impact you.

So what is the point?

 

[Asp Explorer]

WE all share the same BGS, so whatever we did in the Guild Galaxy would still impact you.

So what is the point?

If all they really want is a special chat room and a nametag, then giving them a mode in which such things exist would keep them happy. Yes, of course their actions would affect the same BGS and impact everyone, just as everyone does now.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

If all they really want is a special chat room and a nametag, then giving them a mode in which such things exist would keep them happy. Yes, of course their actions would affect the same BGS and impact everyone, just as everyone does now.

Huh. Don't know where you got that idea.

Chat is silly when you have to keep your hands on the joystick/throttle and I already have a tag.

So... list complete, if you think that is all it is.

And everything else I want, management of membership, etc, is already in the pipe.

 

[Talarin]

If all they really want is a special chat room and a nametag, then giving them a mode in which such things exist would keep them happy. Yes, of course their actions would affect the same BGS and impact everyone, just as everyone does now.

To be explicit - that is a non-Open mode?

If so, your position is just as valid as the "if you don't like clans/wings/pvp/other players go play in another mode" argument. To my mind, that had little merit.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To be explicit - that is a non-Open mode?

If so, your position is just as valid as the "if you don't like clans/wings/pvp/other players go play in another mode" argument. To my mind, that had little merit.

The proposal for an Open-Guild mode, to supplement the existing three modes, was made, I expect, by those who would be content for others to enjoy Guild play while not needing to encounter Guild players in the single open game mode. Adding a mode specifically for Guild features would not be the same as suggesting players who don't want to be affected by Guild play be reduced to two mode options.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Technically speaking a guild setup would be nice if nothing else to have something more efficient than a GROUP list

The grouplist right now is very limited since ONLY the creator can do something.

We need a more flexible system to keep track of a group without having to contact X player and have HIM add people to that list.