dynamicbob
Banned
Thank goodness someone is telling it as it is against these only open types. Good to see Fdev boosting the background sim, automatic colonisation and the like to make all game modes contribute and valid
Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future
- Thread starter dementia
- Start date
Thank goodness someone is telling it as it is against these only open types. Good to see Fdev boosting the background sim, automatic colonisation and the like to make all game modes contribute and valid
That is easily solved by not allowing clan to build in already inhabited systems. Also, how much systems/bases clan can expand into can be balanced out by introducing costs of maintenance - after some point, it should become literally impossible to have another working base. Or - simply put hard cap on number of bases that the clan is allowed to run at any given time.
Last edited:
dynamicbob
Banned
its harder to control minor factions as they grow, a hard cap isnt needed. New bases in a system should depend on wealth and trade strength. A new small unfitted outpost or basic base in a new planet is cheapr to build than a high tech wealth station ( upgrading stations is another good idea)
But either way require significant player efforts to expand a minor faction ( make it a reasonanle process but not an easy process for just one player)
Yes, that is a viable route, but you also bring up something important, that always bothered me with player owned assets. The sheer logistics of things. Let's say the player run faction wants a space station in their nick of the woods. A Coriolis is an expensive piece of hardware. If we think that a corvette is 200 million, I could easily see an space station priced at 2-300 billion credits alone. So you get together 300 players, everyone chips in a billion creds to build it.. and then what? The maintenance costs could easily be as high as to making the guild not do much more then generate creds to pay for the running costs of said asset. If the asset is priced too cheap, it ruins the economy compared to the other items on the market. But I guess that is just me trying to fit the guild asset owning mechanic into the game world in a feasible way
Yes!!!
if the BGS was more diverse, and added extra methods of Flipping systems... ie.. land based takeovers, population manipulation, strengthening security, running weapons trades to increase a systems resistence from being flipped etc etc
then the move toward clan based game would definately enhance the game immensely for traitorus behaviour, and political scheming albeit a plot to justify an invasion,
also lets imagine for a second GALNET news was a free of Censorship and one spokeperson per Clan was allowed to post any type of propaganda they saw fit.. to further their agenda's or to discredit a Clans trustworthiness, it would bring the World of Elite alive... with Bickering and accusations on various issues and more scheming.
The introduction of clans would suffer however if all the BGS could be affected while in group/solo.. which in reality would keep the game where it is at present... so why introduce Clans if they would choose to operate behind a curtain??
Last edited:
What an awful lot of the conversation over the tail end of the thread has been about is this presentation of this binary choice for or against clans. Clans doesn't have to mean this empire-building style of play, and even if it does a lot of people are hoping that this will just be a formalisation of the systems which are present in the game already (minor faction linkage).
Almost a "Fifty Shades of Clans" discussion, if you'll excuse the punnery.
There is a shortfall in the sandbox elements in the game here though. There's no tangible benefits/changes to those feats. I'm not arguing that those benefits/changes should present themselves in the context of clans (rather that's a separate BGS discussion) - but I think a lot of the clamour around player-driven content and clans is precisely because of that shortfall.
Thus, addressing some of the systems around the BGS and the material impact is actually has on the game world and I'd expect at least part of this noise to disappear.
I was with you until your last two points: GalNet and the idea that clans would "suffer" because of solo/group.
Players should never have the ability to write directly into GalNet. It would be nice if the game incorporated a UI in which players could submit articles for approval (because this ability is effectively denied to those who don't frequent the forums) - but the potential issues far outweigh any benefits.
The idea that clans shouldn't be opposed by those in group/solo implies that PVP action is the core of what people want. Clans should principally complete with others (clans/individuals etc) via the BGS always (in my opinion, of course).
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
You're so funny
I voted no and I always play in Open.Would it also be worth pointing out to you that the amount of people who took part in this poll is only 0.7% of the amount of people signed up to the forums and even more amusing than that it's only 0.05% of the amount of units sold.
Everything about executive control, every single time. It starts out with "we need clan comms, tags, decals" then a few pages in this idea of asset ownage, shared assets and the usual garbage gets added. Garbage, mind you, from my point of view. Player named minor factions, not a problem. Same players guiding said minor faction through manipulating the BSG? Bring it on!
Players owning assets that only governments can afford? Hell no. Players owning planetary systems? Again, hell no. The Federation can own planetary systems. A government with multiple tens of thousand subjects can own a planetary system. Not a group of x hundred pilots.
If you meant that the guild would use the current game assets (powerplay, board missions, CZs etc) to expand a chosen minor faction, then yes. If you mean that the guild would get direct control over a minor faction and decide where it moves, what it does, then no.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that "clan" as an extension of the already existing player backed minors would be good.
It's not like it would impact lone wolves in any new ways. "Clans" as player groups playing the BGS
are already in game, and I don't see them going anywhere.
"Clans" should extend what is already done with players backed minors, as such :
That in iteself would make life easier and things more transparent. More advanced stuff related in that guilds/clan as minor faction BGS group play could encompass :
It's not like it would impact lone wolves in any new ways. "Clans" as player groups playing the BGS
are already in game, and I don't see them going anywhere.
"Clans" should extend what is already done with players backed minors, as such :
- Players should be able to "join" a minor faction. When doing so, their ship is tagged as belonging to said minor faction (as NPC's)
- Add a map mode similar to the powerplay map, but for minor faction, allowing to keep track of their extension and state. (i.e. know what is happening where, without having to travel through several systems)
- A minor faction wide chat/voice com channel. That would be a nice first step.
That in iteself would make life easier and things more transparent. More advanced stuff related in that guilds/clan as minor faction BGS group play could encompass :
- Triggering mini-CG, and some level of choice through vote (e.g. BGS picks three possibilities, players vote for one of the three)
- Orienting expansion : as BGS picks three possibilities, players vote for one.
- Minor assets : as small hideouts, refuel posts, repair shops, i.e. very small player build structures bringing no serious advantage beyond the fun of building/owning small cosmetic/RP stuff. (not speaking of outposts/large stations with outfitting services and such here).
Last edited:
Well said, have a bit'o'rep +1
Cleaned up a few posts, if you see a post where someone is being insulting or otherwise offensive, report it, don't respond to it.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Please
One design question though - what happens if two separate groups of people join the same minor faction? Does the game force them to have to share that bulletin/chat/voice system?
I personally lean towards Muetdhiver's suggestions, although I'd prefer a system which influences a minor faction's decisions more accordingly to something like powerplay rather than a straight voting system. This could be weighted so that a group of players has a much smaller influence over a minor faction with a large population (which would mean that as players made their chosen minor faction more powerful they'd control/influence it less - a nice self-regulating system of checks and balances).
Some of us don't start fights. We finish them. But we don't want to be bothered by pesky little flies that are buzzing about and that only delay out journey. We have much proffffitssss to make and why bother even allowing some people ruin our fun? Plus the networking code is so bad and so random with the way it instances it's not even worth it. I'd rather have the quicker transitions anyways.
Coward. No. Smart.. yes.
Its akin to walking through the forest and seeing someone setting a trap ahead and just going around them. Why would I be stupid enough to play along and go through the trap? Not everyone want so role play a "victim".
I would say if two player groups back up the same faction, they would share the votes and stuff. That would make sense.
The number of votes by players could be akin to the powerplay votes you get depending on your rank, but instead tied to
your relation with the minor faction, or maybe the influence gain for the faction caused by your actions.
Looking at what frontier is doing, I would be very surprised if the enhanced minor faction stuff is not along such lines.
I could see PP going in way where the merits grind is replaced by merits from missions (eg ~ to the influence gained for said power's controlled minors through missions, trade, etc...).
That would make minor factions / powers mechanics similar, with powers having extra complications & stuff, with the extra goodness of allowing player groups working for a minor controled
by a power to gain merits while just doing missions & stuff related to the minor they back if they so desire. (i.e. not having to choose btw helping the Sirius inc. minor or the Sirius Corp power).
"Ownership" is a squishy term in ED. (Oh, har har. Pun unintended)
The station is "owned" by the minor faction, but it is just the economy, trade, duties, etc.
The station itself is like an Oasis, or a Church in Medieval Europe. Once inside the bounds, the government cannot touch you. Nuetral ground.
Then there is security OUTSIDE, controlling access. They don't "own" the system or event provide a huge amount of restriction. Just too hard.
Then there is system ownership, aka, Power Play. There, local system forces, Power Play agents, and the Major faction like Fed Navy provide "security"
Systems are huge, so it is a wet paper bag worth of control.
So really, "ownership" would just be acting like the local station manager.
It poses an interesting idea for a mini-game, "running the station" and setting priorities for the missions available depending on the priority you set.
1) Yes, i'd like this. Would be cool if a could show other CMDRs i was flying for IGER. (And group decals would be awesome).
2) If it just displayed your own faction, highlighting where you have control in one colour and have a presence in another - nice. If it tried to display all minor factions it would get very messy.
3) Tricky. Again, quite nice though. They'd need to set up a central server to handle group chats on that scale though.
A) I believe FD have some ideas about automating CGs and stuff as well as automating expansions. But i don't expect any of that to come soon. Voting - tricky. Anyone can "join" any faction, would be massively open to fifth columning.
B) Same as A.
C) And now we move from the thin edge of the wedge up the scale a bit. FD have talked about "inflatable mining bases" and they might go further, but i don't think they would ever consider making them group only things. I would suspect they will allow anyone to buy/build them as long as they can meet the requirements.
Yeah, when I spoke about the map, it was only for displaying one faction at a time.
About 5th columning : I believe there is no real way against it except making it not cost effective :
Other option : put a system of gatekeeping. Since the player backed minor faction are indroduced by FD, you could imagine said backed factions to have a initial set of members.
Then, if player X want to join, existing members of the player group have to vote yay/nay on it. It would work for small groups, but could be quite a pain in the case
of large ones.
*that would be a lot of work to annoy people, but hey, I can bet some will do it no matter how much effort it costs them.
And yeah, player's owned assets are a can of worm, but done right it could do amazing things for RP and fun in general.
IMO, as long as it provides no in game advantages beyond RP and enjoyement, then fine.
About 5th columning : I believe there is no real way against it except making it not cost effective :
- Tie the number of votes to the influence your actions (missions & all) created for the faction. (i.e. want to fifth column : need to help the faction...)
- Make the votes a "choose between good options", if there are no choice that would really hurt the minor faction, just annoy people (I know, some are really into this)*
Other option : put a system of gatekeeping. Since the player backed minor faction are indroduced by FD, you could imagine said backed factions to have a initial set of members.
Then, if player X want to join, existing members of the player group have to vote yay/nay on it. It would work for small groups, but could be quite a pain in the case
of large ones.
*that would be a lot of work to annoy people, but hey, I can bet some will do it no matter how much effort it costs them.
And yeah, player's owned assets are a can of worm, but done right it could do amazing things for RP and fun in general.
IMO, as long as it provides no in game advantages beyond RP and enjoyement, then fine.
Last edited:
That didn't take long, did it? Spooky, isn't it, the way we can read minds... *makes oooeeeeoooo space monster noises*
Last edited:
You must not have been reading the last few pages of the thread. NO ONE has objected to tags. No one. If you think so, show me the post.
However, it didn't take long for the gimmes to start listing what "the clans want" - That appears to be:
"...player owned assets, the ability to throw systems. capital ships, "land based takeovers, population manipulation, strengthening security, traitorus behaviour, and political scheming albeit a plot to justify an invasion, also lets imagine for a second GALNET news was a free of Censorship and one spokeperson per Clan was allowed to post any type of propaganda they saw fit.. to further their agenda's or to discredit a Clans trustworthiness, it would bring the World of Elite alive... with Bickering and accusations on various issues and more scheming..."
In other words, EvE in a cockpit. So please stop harping on "we can't have no tags" because no one has suggested that; in fact, many players in solo or group have backed the social organizing tools and some other suggestions brought up in this thread.
Last edited: