We need the ability to form in-game clans

Are there CGs that give PvP a point, beyond just a gentleman's agreement to duke it out?

I think some PvP centric CGs might be worth including, but part of the point of CGs is to concentrate players in a finite area, making it easier to trigger PvP engagements - but that's even given that the main focus of current and past CGs is a PvE-based goal or objective. Maybe the fact we haven't seen PvP-focused CGs (ie with PvP as the aim) is a reflection (confirmation?) of the fact that PvP is indeed not the game's focus?
 
Last edited:
No thank you. I hope this never happens. I've seen the ugly that comes from this. I like elite the way it is.

I've seen "the ugly" too.. it really wasn't that ugly. At worst it cost me some pixels and virtual currency... maybe I had to ignore some trash talk, but I'm a big boy. That sort of thing wouldn't faze me in the slightest.

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

Not exactly, the game in the area of space you talk about is exploration (but, yes, a galaxy to look at if that's all exploration is). So taking that argument even further, that amplifies the game is not PvP-centric as it's predominantly a PvE exploration-based environment then.



Already does, through CGs in particular, and in part through Powerplay. And there's the finite number of starter systems for those who think PvP = ganking noobs. Even if another 20 permanent hubs specifically targetted at attracting PvP were added, as it were, it would still be a tiny proportion of the game environment and the game would STILL be primarily a PvE environment.

I wouldn't consider looking at the Environment, Player Versus Environment. Can the environment win?
 
Last edited:
I think some PvP centric CGs might be worth including, but part of the point of CGs is to concentrate players in a finite area, making it easier to trigger PvP engagements - but that's even given that the main focus of current and past CGs is a PvE-based goal or objective. Maybe the fact we haven't seen PvP-focused CGs (ie with PvP as the aim) is a reflection (confirmation?) of the fact that PvP is indeed not the game's focus?

I think PvP centric CGs could be a good solution. They'd be welcomed by PvP players, easily avoided by everyone who didn't want to participate, and utilise mechanics already present in the game, taking up very little development time. They'd also be a pretty good guage of interest in PvP content.
 
Hearsay is NOT a fact.

It's not hearsay, it's fact. 20 years ago in MechWarrior 2, Quake, Descent and other PvP games online, we had NO tools for creating teams/guilds/groups and communicating with each other INGAME. So, we used 3rd party tools designed for that or other communication goals. Roger Wilco, literally sounded like everyone was using an old fashioned walkie talkie, 1 person could talk at a time and that was it, and you couldn't tell who was talking or even what sex they were, everyone sounded alike. We loved it, used the hell out of it until other voip tools were created. I currently have Teamspeak, Mumble, Axion and Ventrillo installed on my system as all of them are used by groups I game with in multiple online games, regardless of whether or not the GAME has voip in it, we still use an external tool. We used Angelfire and Geocities to build free websites for our units and leagues, we used Kali and other 3rd party software to get together for gaming.

Today, we use the above mentioned voice comm software, we use FB groups, we use IRC, and we make use of any ingame tools IF they exist on top of these things. Having better ingame tools would be nice, but even with them, the 3rd party tools WILL continue to be used as they are often better tools. I can put a lot of people in a single channel on Teamspeak, far more than any ingame voice chat will let me, including people not ingame or on another team ingame when we're doing large scale ops with other groups, even the ENEMY teams can be on the same TS server with us so the leaders can coordinate everything thing and league/ladder officials can sit in as well. Hearsay huh...I'm going to simply go with you lack experience in this field or you'd know better.
 
<Regarding the game not needing improvements to in-game multiplayer functionality / grouping tools>

It's not hearsay, it's fact.
...
Having better ingame tools would be nice, but even with them, the 3rd party tools WILL continue to be used as they are often better tools.
...
Hearsay huh...I'm going to simply go with you lack experience in this field or you'd know better.

Don't you see arrogance of your declarations of fact and associated condescension of other forum users?

If what you said was true, then the foundation of this thread (that the game loses players, or doesn't get them at all, because of the poor multiplayer experience), the request for improved in-game tools, and others like it couldn't be true and it wouldn't repeatedly come up. But it is - and it's patently obvious. Your opinion and that fact (certainly regarding the "missing players" bit) can't possibly both be correct. The crux of the matter is whether that's a problem worth addressing and that, along with how it could be addressed whilst retaining the integrity of the game, could be an excellent discussion.

Yes, there are 3rd party tools. Yes, if someone set their mind to it they could easily group up with friends. The forums can be an excellent route to meet new associates. Noone is saying that isn't true. However, that's not the whole of the described issue.

It doesn't address the shortfall in content. And it doesn't address the issue that there are plenty of times where the use of 3rd party voice comms isn't possible or desirable (for example, I'm father to two young children - if they're recently down to sleep I don't really want to be on voice.) Should I have to switch out of the game in order to type something into a tool like IRC, or a TeamSpeak channel chat?

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

Just as a reminder - this is the issue that the OP described. His proposed solutions were traditional EvE-style corp stuff, which I think has hindered this thread.

I know quite a few people who have bought Elite Dangerous, played it for a week or 2, and never played it again. The reason ? It's simple. While the game has the ability to form 'wings', it is still pretty much a solo playing game.
The only teamwork involved is to fly together and shoot other ships. I am part of an online gaming community and in 1 of our catch-ups, the topic of ED came up and many people said they stopped playing for this reason.

We know already that clans/guilds - as we traditionally know them - aren't going to appear. FD have other ideas in mind. Great. Debating the pros and cons of traditional clan/guild systems is pointless because it isn't going to happen. But his point remains correct, the multiplayer aspect of ED is an element which stops it being "sticky" for players - especially those who are used to making the multiplayer experience of a game be the core of it.

Is that not an issue worth addressing?
 
Last edited:
Don't you see arrogance of your declarations of fact and associated condescension of other forum users?

If what you said was true, then the foundation of this thread (that the game loses players, or doesn't get them at all, because of the poor multiplayer experience), the request for improved in-game tools, and others like it couldn't be true and it wouldn't repeatedly come up. But it is - and it's patently obvious. Your opinion and that fact (certainly regarding the "missing players" bit) can't possibly both be correct. The crux of the matter is whether that's a problem worth addressing and that, along with how it could be addressed whilst retaining the integrity of the game, could be an excellent discussion.

Yes, there are 3rd party tools. Yes, if someone set their mind to it they could easily group up with friends. The forums can be an excellent route to meet new associates. Noone is saying that isn't true. However, that's not the whole of the described issue.

It doesn't address the shortfall in content. And it doesn't address the issue that there are plenty of times where the use of 3rd party voice comms isn't possible or desirable (for example, I'm father to two young children - if they're recently down to sleep I don't really want to be on voice.) Should I have to switch out of the game in order to type something into a tool like IRC, or a TeamSpeak channel chat?

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

Just as a reminder - this is the issue that the OP described. His proposed solutions were traditional EvE-style corp stuff, which I think has hindered this thread.



We know already that clans/guilds - as we traditionally know them - aren't going to appear. FD have other ideas in mind. Great. Debating the pros and cons of traditional clan/guild systems is pointless because it isn't going to happen. But his point remains correct, the multiplayer aspect of ED is an element which stops it being "sticky" for players - especially those who are used to making the multiplayer experience of a game be the core of it.

Is that not an issue worth addressing?

To the first part, no, I see someone without any experience calling me a liar, politely, but still calling me a liar, and I don't take kindly to that, so I educated him.

You don't want to use 3rd party tools because...reasons...aka excuses. This game already HAS built in voice comms and text chats for friends, wings and groups. What's needed to go with that? Mapping tools that no one will use except a very small subset of a subset of a subset who do large scale PvP? Ah, yes, FD should immediately get RIGHT on making those UI changes for those few hundred people! That's , you should be aware of that too. ANY adult should be aware of the fact that you don't cater to the smallest number of people you can find in a population base, it's just stupid.

People not enjoying Elite Dangerous because it's not a group friendly game? Well, that's true enough, it's not a group friendly game, and that's rather by design, in case you missed that. David Braben, the man behind the game, the man who's vision is THE base of this game, doesn't like teams and all that, he's been vocal about it more than a few times, it's NOT a secret, so what the hell did anyone expect?

The majority of this game's playerbase do not want anything to do with teams or support for them added, they don't even like the minimal amount that's been done, so is it an issue worth addressing? To the majority, no, it's not.

Me, I know when I'm the minority and don't go trying to annoy the majority for things that were never offered, never promised and are obviously NOT part of the game in the first place. But that's me, I'm an adult, I don't expect to be catered to by a video game maker, especially not one who is making a game to fit the vision of the CEO and no one else. David asked for help to build HIS game, not OUR game, people forget that and think they are entitled for some reason. Never have understood that mentality, then again, I don't go out to eat and expect to be treated like a king because I'm paying, I don't get upset when I order a Whopper at McDonald's and they tell me I can't have it, silly me huh?
 
To the first part, no, I see someone without any experience calling me a liar, politely, but still calling me a liar, and I don't take kindly to that, so I educated him.

You don't want to use 3rd party tools because...reasons...aka excuses. This game already HAS built in voice comms and text chats for friends, wings and groups. What's needed to go with that? Mapping tools that no one will use except a very small subset of a subset of a subset who do large scale PvP? Ah, yes, FD should immediately get RIGHT on making those UI changes for those few hundred people! That's , you should be aware of that too. ANY adult should be aware of the fact that you don't cater to the smallest number of people you can find in a population base, it's just stupid.

People not enjoying Elite Dangerous because it's not a group friendly game? Well, that's true enough, it's not a group friendly game, and that's rather by design, in case you missed that. David Braben, the man behind the game, the man who's vision is THE base of this game, doesn't like teams and all that, he's been vocal about it more than a few times, it's NOT a secret, so what the hell did anyone expect?

The majority of this game's playerbase do not want anything to do with teams or support for them added, they don't even like the minimal amount that's been done, so is it an issue worth addressing? To the majority, no, it's not.

Me, I know when I'm the minority and don't go trying to annoy the majority for things that were never offered, never promised and are obviously NOT part of the game in the first place. But that's me, I'm an adult, I don't expect to be catered to by a video game maker, especially not one who is making a game to fit the vision of the CEO and no one else. David asked for help to build HIS game, not OUR game, people forget that and think they are entitled for some reason. Never have understood that mentality, then again, I don't go out to eat and expect to be treated like a king because I'm paying, I don't get upset when I order a Whopper at McDonald's and they tell me I can't have it, silly me huh?

Oh Kristov....your head would explode if you knew where they are thinking of taking this game! Honestly. You're no longer part of the majority!
 
Oh Kristov....your head would explode if you knew where they are thinking of taking this game! Honestly. You're no longer part of the majority!

[CITATION NEEDED]

No seriously - please back up your assertion with cold hard facts :)

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Regards.
 
Oh Kristov....your head would explode if you knew where they are thinking of taking this game! Honestly. You're no longer part of the majority!

What are you talking about? I see nothing from FD lately that makes me inclined to believe they've suddenly done a 180 on the team thing, especially since David himself was nicely very cloudy on when more team tools would be added, no timeline at all, not even a statement that they WOULD be added, only that if they ARE added, they'll be like no other game.

So, what are you off about?

Oh, and in case you missed it, I clearly stated, I'm in the minority, not the majority....
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about? I see nothing from FD lately that makes me inclined to believe they've suddenly done a 180 on the team thing, especially since David himself was nicely very cloudy on when more team tools would be added, no timeline at all, not even a statement that they WOULD be added, only that if they ARE added, they'll be like no other game.

So, what are you off about?

Oh, and in case you missed it, I clearly stated, I'm in the minority, not the majority....

Well you were claiming the person you were ranting against was in the minority when it came to possible group/clan/whatever 'stuff'. Just pointing out that the group folks are more likely in the majority rather than those demanding otherwise...and I can't tell you because you have to be in a group to have access those discussions! neener neener!

BTW.. I like your idea that groups should be limited in their capability...yet should be huge to have any impact on the game...nice ideas! :p
 
To the first part, no, I see someone without any experience calling me a liar, politely, but still calling me a liar, and I don't take kindly to that, so I educated him.

Ok. With all of the respect that the following comment can muster: He was right, you were wrong. You have an opinion (which you're entitled to) - but your opinion is not factual. It's just your opinion.

You don't want to use 3rd party tools because...reasons...aka excuses.

And there's that arrogance and condescension again. I don't need to make excuses as to why voice comms are not suitable for me. You can take or leave that as you see fit. The point I'm making is that better in-game tools would make for a far better experience for those people who do feel that this should be a better multiplayer experience. Group and group management tools, quick communications tools, in-game BBS at stations (perhaps using pre-canned stuff - as we have to cater to the XBOX crowd now, plus allowing players to write free-text is a recipe for abuse...) There are loads of relatively simple things that can be done to improve this aspect of the game.

Simply saying "3rd party tools" are good enough is fine if that's what you think, but people having a differing opinion doesn't make you right and them wrong.

This game already HAS built in voice comms and text chats for friends, wings and groups. What's needed to go with that? Mapping tools that no one will use except a very small subset of a subset of a subset who do large scale PvP? Ah, yes, FD should immediately get RIGHT on making those UI changes for those few hundred people! That's , you should be aware of that too. ANY adult should be aware of the fact that you don't cater to the smallest number of people you can find in a population base, it's just stupid.

I can't speak for others, but certainly the improvements I've been advocating seem very lightweight and considerate of something that I do value: the retention of the "Elite-experience". I'm aware of people pushing for more, and I understand why they do. Having said that - I think you'd probably find that tools and features within the game which improve player interaction, especially on a "on the spot" basis, might be more popular than you think. Certainly I disagree that that improvements to the multiplayer aspect of the game would only be to the benefit of the minority - but I have as much data as you on the truth of that so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

People not enjoying Elite Dangerous because it's not a group friendly game? Well, that's true enough, it's not a group friendly game, and that's rather by design, in case you missed that. David Braben, the man behind the game, the man who's vision is THE base of this game, doesn't like teams and all that, he's been vocal about it more than a few times, it's NOT a secret, so what the hell did anyone expect?

That's a misinterpretation. He doesn't like guilds and the toxic play they can be associated with. Please don't conflate the two. And, as I said, he said that he wouldn't do anything that way - which is why I'm keen to keep the focus on the multiplayer experience.

Me, I know when I'm the minority and don't go trying to annoy the majority for things that were never offered, never promised and are obviously NOT part of the game in the first place. But that's me, I'm an adult, I don't expect to be catered to by a video game maker, especially not one who is making a game to fit the vision of the CEO and no one else. David asked for help to build HIS game, not OUR game, people forget that and think they are entitled for some reason. Never have understood that mentality, then again, I don't go out to eat and expect to be treated like a king because I'm paying, I don't get upset when I order a Whopper at McDonald's and they tell me I can't have it, silly me huh?

Wings. Powerplay. Active interaction with the group-based community. Community goals. Regional community goals. Bounty boards. Player-generated GalNet news.

There's seven things off the top of my head that clearly show that your assumption that multiplayer isn't actually supposed to be in or part of Elite is wrong.
 
[CITATION NEEDED]

No seriously - please back up your assertion with cold hard facts :)

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Regards.

As I explained to Kristov...you have to be in a group to get that information!

minion_1.png

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

Ok. With all of the respect that the following comment can muster: He was right, you were wrong. You have an opinion (which you're entitled to) - but your opinion is not factual. It's just your opinion.



And there's that arrogance and condescension again. I don't need to make excuses as to why voice comms are not suitable for me. You can take or leave that as you see fit. The point I'm making is that better in-game tools would make for a far better experience for those people who do feel that this should be a better multiplayer experience. Group and group management tools, quick communications tools, in-game BBS at stations (perhaps using pre-canned stuff - as we have to cater to the XBOX crowd now, plus allowing players to write free-text is a recipe for abuse...) There are loads of relatively simple things that can be done to improve this aspect of the game.

Simply saying "3rd party tools" are good enough is fine if that's what you think, but people having a differing opinion doesn't make you right and them wrong.



I can't speak for others, but certainly the improvements I've been advocating seem very lightweight and considerate of something that I do value: the retention of the "Elite-experience". I'm aware of people pushing for more, and I understand why they do. Having said that - I think you'd probably find that tools and features within the game which improve player interaction, especially on a "on the spot" basis, might be more popular than you think. Certainly I disagree that that improvements to the multiplayer aspect of the game would only be to the benefit of the minority - but I have as much data as you on the truth of that so we'll just have to agree to disagree.



That's a misinterpretation. He doesn't like guilds and the toxic play they can be associated with. Please don't conflate the two. And, as I said, he said that he wouldn't do anything that way - which is why I'm keen to keep the focus on the multiplayer experience.



Wings. Powerplay. Active interaction with the group-based community. Community goals. Regional community goals. Bounty boards. Player-generated GalNet news.

There's seven things off the top of my head that clearly show that your assumption that multiplayer isn't actually supposed to be in or part of Elite is wrong.

Shhh...the applecart...don't upset it! It's at the tipping point as it is!
 
Sorry - just to clarify: I just spotted you said large scale PvP. I've never mentioned, pushed for or advocated that in any way - because I don't want it (and nor do I think it's possible with the game's technical constraints). The improvements I advocate are not with that in mind.
 

A wing of up to 4 players - yes that's a multiplayer feature all right, I'll give you that.

Powerplay.

Entirely Background Simulation / PvE -based content, of which any player in any mode can participate in if they choose to. Yes, that means the Solo player can have an effect, the Group player too, and yes even players in Open can have an effect as well - but regardless of the mode - it's all BGS/PvE.

Active interaction with the group-based community.

Of course! FDEV are interacting with many different facets of the player-base, including group-based players. This is excellent of FDEV to do and is making just about everyone happy. :)


Community goals. Regional community goals. Bounty boards.

See Powerplay above - exactly the same BGS/PvE-based content that all game mode players enjoy.


Player-generated GalNet news.

Which is content that can be created by any player, regardless of their preferred mode. It's a bit like the Roleplaying section of this forum.

There's seven things off the top of my head that clearly show that your assumption that multiplayer isn't actually supposed to be in or part of Elite is wrong.

I think you've misunderstood what's been said. The fact is, regardless of the mode you play in, at the end of the day you're affecting the BGS. You're all playing a PvE-based game - it's merely a question of if you're playing it as a Solo player, in a Private group, or with any player in Open mode. Everyone is playing PvE - it's just that in Open mode, you have no control over which other player(s) you might encounter bar deliberately meeting up with some by way of teamspeak etc.

Regards
 
I think you've misunderstood what's been said. The fact is, regardless of the mode you play in, at the end of the day you're affecting the BGS. You're all playing a PvE-based game - it's merely a question of if you're playing it as a Solo player, in a Private group, or with any player in Open mode. Everyone is playing PvE - it's just that in Open mode, you have no control over which other player(s) you might encounter bar deliberately meeting up with some by way of teamspeak etc.

Sorry, I think we're getting mixed up. The thrust of the argument I'm responding to (at least as I understand it) is that Elite is principally supposed to be a single player game, with multiplayer aspects shoehorned on "because it was expected". I disagree with that assessment. I suggest that the interactions and development of the game indicate precisely the opposite. I believe this is supposed to be a community and multiplayer experience (note; not PVP and not directly conflict-driven, more competitive). Therefore, improvements to the multiplayer experience should be encouraged - not disparaged as "entitled" and infantile.
 
Apologies if anything is repeated, not had chance to catch up with everything posted so far.


I’d be fine with clans in-game as long as it doesn’t force others to play in clans in order to enjoy the game, and also if there were no tags next to names (group affiliation displayed alongside ship info, as currently done with faction allegiance etc, would be ok, I guess). The thing that I really don’t like is when the same groups, with the same group name, pop up in every game ‘universe’. It’s not even the players or the play-style that I dislike, it just feels like when you’re watching a movie and an actor/actress that you recognise from something else joins the scene. I’m not sure what the workaround would be, other than to have clans submit potential names for approval.


I’m also not exactly sure what purpose clans would serve, other than to afford bragging rights vs other clans (not saying there’s anything wrong with that). Would they be taking over systems, or entire areas of space? Should we consider it reasonable that an incredibly small group of people, relative to the population of a particular system, would have the ability to do this?
 
Well you were claiming the person you were ranting against was in the minority when it came to possible group/clan/whatever 'stuff'. Just pointing out that the group folks are more likely in the majority rather than those demanding otherwise...and I can't tell you because you have to be in a group to have access those discussions! neener neener!

BTW.. I like your idea that groups should be limited in their capability...yet should be huge to have any impact on the game...nice ideas! :p

Huh?


Sorry - just to clarify: I just spotted you said large scale PvP. I've never mentioned, pushed for or advocated that in any way - because I don't want it (and nor do I think it's possible with the game's technical constraints). The improvements I advocate are not with that in mind.

My comments on 3rd party tools and how the gamers who like to work in groups, call them teams/clans/guilds/its all the same, that's not an opinion, again, that's FACT, we've been doing that for 20+ years now, as the first online games didn't offer anything like that, we didn't have any choice in the matter. And the groups still do this, they have their voice comm servers, they have their FB pages, this isn't an opinion, this is fact.

Do you guys even PLAY other online games with large units in them? I ask because it seems like you don't or you'd be aware of this already, 3rd party tools are a given for any unit/group/clan/guild and have been for decades now.

Wing, the only TEAM-ish thing you mentioned, and I'll wager someone in legal asked why the adverts state Elite Dangerous is THE Massively Multiplayer Online experience and doesn't actually DO a damn thing to support that statement, so Wings came about. I mean, if you make that claim, as FD doe, you really DO need to have SOMETHING that applies in that area you know. Wings kinda does that, but it's enough to take care of any legal challenges, so..good enough! And as I said, the other stuff you mentioned, CGs, GalNet, etc, nothing to do with teams, do you even realize that? Those are either PR bits or things to make the individual player feel they are part of the big background story, that's all they are. Bounty boards...how the hell you get anything team oriented out of those is beyond me.

Team support in the game is actually zip, zero, nothing, as Wings isn't actually a TEAM tool, it's simply a way to group with 3 others at a time, that's it, JUST enough to cover legal issues, not much else. You've got the ability to chat with your friends in Elite without a Wing, so you don't need to be in a Wing to chat with your friends. Wings allows you to be in a party with people, 3 others, and that's about it. Don't even have to be in the same area of the galaxy to be in a Wing, so it's NOT a team tool per se, it allows some team like functionality, but that's it. BIG difference there, really big, but you don't seem to see that...

And large scale PvP does exist in Elite Dangerous, true it's mostly a big streetbrawl when it takes place, but it does indeed take place, I've watched quite a bit of the videos for them, it's not new either, so I'm guessing you really aren't in touch with what some of the teams in Elite ARE all about, which is PvP. The Code, RoA, CTRL, lots of other random collections of letters, they all do these large scale combats. True, there's a limit to HOW big they can get, instancing and all that, but 16v16 is possible, you should look up the vids.

The OP wants something right out of EvE, pure and simple, and that's not going to happen. Others want essentially the same thing but are trying to sugarcoat it so it doesn't SEEM like the EvE stuff, but that's what it is. Others just want some team tools, period, ANYTHING at all! I'm in agreement with the last group, ANY tools at all for teams would be awesome! I'm also fully aware of David's dislike of teams, you can try the 'he said guilds' line all you want, guilds/teams/clans/units/teams, it's the SAME damn thing, terminology varies INSIDE a game, much less from game to game, but it MEANS the same thing, organized group of players banding together. David doesn't like that because it does come with the toxicity that he hates, that's a fact, it exists, always. Not all groups are like that but enough ARE that it's always a problem in any game. He is right on that count, we already have it in Elite Dangerous and that's without a single tool ingame to support teams, so how much WORSE will that get with tools that DO support them? Get a base for your unit and it'll have an impact across ALL modes, it has to, the BGS makes that so, or you get NOTHING for having that base, which makes it totally pointless and NOT what most of the people who want a base will accept, they want to be able to control their market, limit access to THEIR base, and that will impact solo and group modes, and that's not going to happen.

WE, the people who are actually team oriented and want to play with others of a like mind, we are the minority in Elite, a very small minority. We're playing a single player game that wasn't designed to support team oriented play, designed by a man who doesn't like that in the first place. And you expect the devs to cater to you....well...why not, you assume all these not team things are there for teams, so why wouldn't you expect the sun to rise in the north and set in the east?
 
The OP wants something right out of EvE, pure and simple, and that's not going to happen. Others want essentially the same thing but are trying to sugarcoat it so it doesn't SEEM like the EvE stuff, but that's what it is. Others just want some team tools, period, ANYTHING at all! I'm in agreement with the last group, ANY tools at all for teams would be awesome! I'm also fully aware of David's dislike of teams, you can try the 'he said guilds' line all you want, guilds/teams/clans/units/teams, it's the SAME damn thing, terminology varies INSIDE a game, much less from game to game, but it MEANS the same thing, organized group of players banding together. David doesn't like that because it does come with the toxicity that he hates, that's a fact, it exists, always. Not all groups are like that but enough ARE that it's always a problem in any game. He is right on that count, we already have it in Elite Dangerous and that's without a single tool ingame to support teams, so how much WORSE will that get with tools that DO support them? Get a base for your unit and it'll have an impact across ALL modes, it has to, the BGS makes that so, or you get NOTHING for having that base, which makes it totally pointless and NOT what most of the people who want a base will accept, they want to be able to control their market, limit access to THEIR base, and that will impact solo and group modes, and that's not going to happen.

You guys need to stop relating the particuar features the OP is asking for directly to EVE. Just. Stop. There have been plenty of games that involve players banning together and fighting together, this is not something only related to EVE. EVE isn't the only game with guild structured content. Lineage series, Everquest, Archeage, Darkspace, Savage Eden, Shattered Galaxy, THis that this that this that this that, etc. Guild structered content has been in whatever the hell mmo existed since the beginning of time. Just because EVE is an MMO that endorses griefing does not mean every mmo that has guild structured content does this. I mean seriously, the devs have talked about player controlled executive capital ships. Do you think a single player is gonna sit and fly a federal battle cruiser? That will be the day.
 
Last edited:
How did this thread not get locked down within its first 10 seconds of existence? You mean portions of the playerbase stopped their anti-social behavior that are championed as social behaviors and embraced the typical attributes in a MMO after a year in a MMO game's open development?

What?

I don't believe this =-=...
 
Back
Top Bottom