We need the ability to form in-game clans

[Avetorian]

I personally don't like using EvE, not my game, tried it many years ago and found it not my thing at all. I've been in units for all kinds of games online, MMOs and not, sometimes they catered to the units, sometimes not, didn't matter, the units formed regardless.

Some gave us housing/bases, ways to buy stuff cheaper in our guild house, crafting cheaper in our guild house, etc. All fun, all great, and none of those had any sort of BGS or any way for the guild toys to actually influence the game itself, they existed, that's it.

People want bases in Elite, even David wanted to, in 2014 at EGX, see players have a station they can call their own. However, due to the BGS and how everything is interlinked, giving us control over those stations becomes a problem. Units would want to control their station, that's rather the point of owning them after all. Access lists, setting prices on commodities, prices for repairs, reloads, what ships can be bought and the prices for them, people will want to control that, they'll constantly whine about not being able to if they can't, and we'll see the same arguments..'there's not enough for my unit to do, we're quitting unless you fix that, X amount already left over this'. That's a given, it'll happen, that's essentially the gist of the OP's reason WHY this needs to be done! People are leaving because the single player game they bought doesn't support large teams, so give them what they want or MORE will leave!

Me, I knew what I was getting with Elite Dangerous, I haven't tried to get my fellow Rats to come here from our other games as teammates, because what we like to do as a unit, it's not supported by the game, the GAME isn't designed for teams, simple as that. I was aware of this before I bought the game, I'm good with it. I am one of those people who looks at a game before I buy it, I make sure it's something I'll like and how it plays, does it support anything beyond single player being a huge thing for me. Outside of the Witcher games, Elite is the first game I've bought in a very long time that isn't team oriented PvP combat based. It's simply NOT that type of game, no matter how some people keep insisting it should support teams and PvP and this and that and the other thing they want from their favorite game.

Fair enough. I think there is a severe lack of understanding when you apply the term base with elite dangerous, and what some of us might be asking for. Stations are a no. I personally have no interest in running a station, infact I think that a player group running a station is pointless. I just see a lot of people attaching any aspect of a multiplayer feature that has been in many other games, to the eve label and the worst common denominator then shoehorning that onto the OPs request or any post that suggests multiplayer feature x. It's really bad honestly. Instead of saying "Well this wouldn't work because of reason x" Lets take a step back and look at what the OP is asking, or what many users in this forum are asking. "Some form of player group content, or co-operative play in a more urgent setting" Alright so how would that work? how would player controlled bases/housing or guild outposts work in elite dangerous, What would work for elite dangerous and the larger player groups that want to do their thing?

Forget about PVP for just the moment, what about explorers, or your fuel rats that you keep bringing up? How about having a small outpost to base out of, re-supply and repair when operating far outside of the bubble? Simple things like that. Elite right now, is as you say not a team oriented game. However it is not written in stone that more systems in place won't be added to facilitate that particular nature of the game. No one here is suggesting that all aspects of solo play should be removed, solo players have no reason to jump on us asking for some more co-operative content. It does not affect them.

 

[JosiahD]

Fair enough. I think there is a severe lack of understanding when you apply the term base with elite dangerous, and what some of us might be asking for. Stations are a no. I personally have no interest in running a station, infact I think that a player group running a station is pointless. I just see a lot of people attaching any aspect of a multiplayer feature that has been in many other games, to the eve label and the worst common denominator then shoehorning that onto the OPs request or any post that suggests multiplayer feature x. It's really bad honestly. Instead of saying "Well this wouldn't work because of reason x" Lets take a step back and look at what the OP is asking, or what many users in this forum are asking. "Some form of player group content, or co-operative play in a more urgent setting" Alright so how would that work? how would player controlled bases/housing or guild outposts work in elite dangerous, What would work for elite dangerous and the larger player groups that want to do their thing?

Forget about PVP for just the moment, what about explorers, or your fuel rats that you keep bringing up? How about having a small outpost to base out of, re-supply and repair when operating far outside of the bubble? Simple things like that. Elite right now, is as you say not a team oriented game. However it is not written in stone that more systems in place won't be added to facilitate that particular nature of the game. No one here is suggesting that all aspects of solo play should be removed, solo players have no reason to jump on us asking for some more co-operative content. It does not affect them.

Except you can't forget about the PvP when discussing things like guilds because that's EXACTLY why a significant proportion of the proponents for guilds are wanting it - the ability to own assets and territory and exert their version of control within that (eg competition/conflict with other guilds for those assets and inventory). You are 100% correct that there are indeed a lot of positives from improved guild/clan systems for occupations like exploring, trading, mining. Problem is the negative aspects (as perceived by those who have no interest in guild-based play) that come with it could be too significant - that's not to say the negatives would even appear to the degree many fear, but it is certain that they will appear if any guild/clan system is not balanced correctly to prevent it (which is what I think Braben was on about).
.
The main negative aspect I fear of a guild/clan system is this. Assuming that it includes guild ownership of assets and territory, and the inevitable conflct between guilds as they fight for them, not only will that undoubtedly impact on the freedom of movement of non guild aligned players (as it has in other games) in open mode, but ask yourself what those guilds will then think about the ability to switch modes? I firmly believe they will agitate for the removal of the ability to switch modes (heck, there are those who want that even now) as it undermines their ability to exert control over their territory. It may never happen, and there's no telling whether Frontier would even cave in to that anyway, of course, but for me I'm not sure I even want to risk what is one of the key attractions and features of the Elite we have today for the sake of guild play.
.
Which means I find myself somewhat torn - I want the positives of guild play, but I also want none of the negatives (at least those that I perceive to be negatives) and I'm not sure it's possible to have the former without the latter. And if that's the case, then I'd rather not have guild-based play I think.

 

[Kristov]

Fair enough. I think there is a severe lack of understanding when you apply the term base with elite dangerous, and what some of us might be asking for. Stations are a no. I personally have no interest in running a station, infact I think that a player group running a station is pointless. I just see a lot of people attaching any aspect of a multiplayer feature that has been in many other games, to the eve label and the worst common denominator then shoehorning that onto the OPs request or any post that suggests multiplayer feature x. It's really bad honestly. Instead of saying "Well this wouldn't work because of reason x" Lets take a step back and look at what the OP is asking, or what many users in this forum are asking. "Some form of player group content, or co-operative play in a more urgent setting" Alright so how would that work? how would player controlled bases/housing or guild outposts work in elite dangerous, What would work for elite dangerous and the larger player groups that want to do their thing?

Forget about PVP for just the moment, what about explorers, or your fuel rats that you keep bringing up? How about having a small outpost to base out of, re-supply and repair when operating far outside of the bubble? Simple things like that. Elite right now, is as you say not a team oriented game. However it is not written in stone that more systems in place won't be added to facilitate that particular nature of the game. No one here is suggesting that all aspects of solo play should be removed, solo players have no reason to jump on us asking for some more co-operative content. It does not affect them.

Thing is, the OP was clear, get a base, which is a station in Elite, ground or orbital, it's terminology, same difference, same as the guild/clan/team/unit thing, same difference. He wants to get a base and allow his team to build up it's defenses first and foremost, then add more landing pad, etc, and pay for that by having to expend food...yeah, food is what he said..but we get the idea, an upkeep cost for said base.

Now, why would defenses be his first priority? Obvious answer is obvious, and it'll be one of the things that groups want, a way to attack and defend bases from other groups, who can possibly destroy them. Don't need defenses upgraded otherwise, the standard defenses on every station in the game right now are serious overkill, but that's the FIRST thing he wants to upgrade. Wants to be able to increase potential earnings from this base as well, and have group specific game play JUST for that purpose.

Ok, OP has already gone and upset the entire solo play portion of the playerbase, which vastly outnumbers the non-solo play portion, and that's bad juju. Soon as you mention group specific game play, you've also turned off David Braben, who's very clearly stated that is something he doesn't want in his game. It's a no go, sorry, but what the OP has asked for, that's all group specific toys and game play options, and that's a clear no go from David Braben himself, end of story.

Now, how exactly can a station somewhere help explorers or the Fuel Rats? I'm an explorer, and I'm over 40k LY out, what possible use is a station I own to me right now? Fuel Rats may have to respond to someone by Sol or to someone by Sag A* or to someone 65k LY directly across the galaxy from the bubble, so what exactly does a single station sitting stationary in some system do for them? Nothing in either case, they are pointless for both groups, so there's no case to make there.

Now, The Code, RoA, CTRL, THEY have home systems, THEY could make use of a station to operate out of. And they'd want it's defenses upgraded, they'd definitely demand that they be allowed to set access to the station. And therein lies the problem, again, group specific functions in the game that only benefit groups. David's said no to that, straight up, clear as crystal, no.

Adding stuff for groups isn't as clear cut and simple as people try to make it out to be. Anything that points out you are part of a team, automatically annoys the solo players, who, once again, are the vast majority of the player base, so that's a no go. Anything that caters to groups, no go, both the solo players AND the man behind the game say no to that. So where does that leave us?

David saying that we MIGHT see something later on for teams, and IF it happens, it wouldn't be like any other game. He did NOT say WHEN they add something for teams later on, please pay attention to that fact. People jump on that statement as if he'd promised it, he didn't, he did just the opposite, might and if...not when.

You start giving any recognition to the teams and the solo players get upset, simple as that, stupid as that. You should visit the MechWarrior Online forums and check out just how bad the solo player mentality gets, and that's for an online PvP team oriented game that's advertised as a team oriented game, it's back history is full of teams and units, it's the basis FOR the entire game, teams of people working together as a coordinated coherent unit. And the solo players raise holy hell about ANYTHING to do with teams and team work and all that, even though the game IS a team game from the ground up. And the solo players there, massive majority of the player base, same as they are here, even though, again, MWO is a team oriented game designed for and around team combat. PGI, the makers of MWO, tend to ignore the solo players to an extent, it IS a team game after all, but they DO have to cater to them none the less, they ARE the majority. FD, solo players are not only the majority but the game isn't a team game, so catering to the extreme minority is a bad business decision. We MUST keep that in mind, we want team oriented stuff, we think it would make the game better, and for us it would, but just for us, the minority. A minority that is so small and so fragmented that parts of it have no clue what other parts of it are doing.

 

[avow555]

Not interested in guilds/clans/gank squads with the same kind of people who try and tell you how you should play their way.
Most undesirable feature of MMO games, been there , done it and burnt the t-shirt long time ago.

 

[DanTheMan]

You might, I don't.

Who is "We"?

 

[EValve]

who can possibly destroy them.

Or, disable and loot. Treated as no other than equal to a pirate's outpost. That way it's not interfering between modes.
Still have an outpost to call home, dock your ships, a trading system that involves the crafting of the upcoming "boosts". A place to keep modules, or commodities.

It's the middle-ground to all parties.

---------

Obviously in open you'd be faced with the Cmdr attempting to raid your base. In solo you wouldn't. As far as loot goes, RNG based?

------

I'm pretty certain OP is not looking forward to having this outpost burned to the ground. Just having a place to store assets and interact with as a money-sink.

 

[Garbarrage]

Ok, OP has already gone and upset the entire solo play portion of the playerbase, which vastly outnumbers the non-solo play portion, and that's bad juju.

Have you got a source for this?

As for DB's opinion regarding guilds... the only time I've heard him mention anything about it, he stated that it was something they were looking at, but wouldn't do it like other games. He's not a fan of "griefing". That's it. There are plenty of ways to prevent griefing without preventing guilds.

 

[Imrus76]

NO, we don't need.
Pledge to a Power and there you are, your clan.

 

[Avetorian]

Thing is, the OP was clear, get a base, which is a station in Elite, ground or orbital, it's terminology, same difference, same as the guild/clan/team/unit thing, same difference. He wants to get a base and allow his team to build up it's defenses first and foremost, then add more landing pad, etc, and pay for that by having to expend food...yeah, food is what he said..but we get the idea, an upkeep cost for said base.

Now, why would defenses be his first priority? Obvious answer is obvious, and it'll be one of the things that groups want, a way to attack and defend bases from other groups, who can possibly destroy them. Don't need defenses upgraded otherwise, the standard defenses on every station in the game right now are serious overkill, but that's the FIRST thing he wants to upgrade. Wants to be able to increase potential earnings from this base as well, and have group specific game play JUST for that purpose.

Ok, OP has already gone and upset the entire solo play portion of the playerbase, which vastly outnumbers the non-solo play portion, and that's bad juju. Soon as you mention group specific game play, you've also turned off David Braben, who's very clearly stated that is something he doesn't want in his game. It's a no go, sorry, but what the OP has asked for, that's all group specific toys and game play options, and that's a clear no go from David Braben himself, end of story.

Now, how exactly can a station somewhere help explorers or the Fuel Rats? I'm an explorer, and I'm over 40k LY out, what possible use is a station I own to me right now? Fuel Rats may have to respond to someone by Sol or to someone by Sag A* or to someone 65k LY directly across the galaxy from the bubble, so what exactly does a single station sitting stationary in some system do for them? Nothing in either case, they are pointless for both groups, so there's no case to make there.

Now, The Code, RoA, CTRL, THEY have home systems, THEY could make use of a station to operate out of. And they'd want it's defenses upgraded, they'd definitely demand that they be allowed to set access to the station. And therein lies the problem, again, group specific functions in the game that only benefit groups. David's said no to that, straight up, clear as crystal, no.

Adding stuff for groups isn't as clear cut and simple as people try to make it out to be. Anything that points out you are part of a team, automatically annoys the solo players, who, once again, are the vast majority of the player base, so that's a no go. Anything that caters to groups, no go, both the solo players AND the man behind the game say no to that. So where does that leave us?

David saying that we MIGHT see something later on for teams, and IF it happens, it wouldn't be like any other game. He did NOT say WHEN they add something for teams later on, please pay attention to that fact. People jump on that statement as if he'd promised it, he didn't, he did just the opposite, might and if...not when.

You start giving any recognition to the teams and the solo players get upset, simple as that, stupid as that. You should visit the MechWarrior Online forums and check out just how bad the solo player mentality gets, and that's for an online PvP team oriented game that's advertised as a team oriented game, it's back history is full of teams and units, it's the basis FOR the entire game, teams of people working together as a coordinated coherent unit. And the solo players raise holy hell about ANYTHING to do with teams and team work and all that, even though the game IS a team game from the ground up. And the solo players there, massive majority of the player base, same as they are here, even though, again, MWO is a team oriented game designed for and around team combat. PGI, the makers of MWO, tend to ignore the solo players to an extent, it IS a team game after all, but they DO have to cater to them none the less, they ARE the majority. FD, solo players are not only the majority but the game isn't a team game, so catering to the extreme minority is a bad business decision. We MUST keep that in mind, we want team oriented stuff, we think it would make the game better, and for us it would, but just for us, the minority. A minority that is so small and so fragmented that parts of it have no clue what other parts of it are doing.

You're driving the station argument down my throat and I don't like it. I never suggested a station, a station is a station, a base is a base. A base is far too loose of a term to just throw "station" at it. When I see the term base, I'm thinking along the lines of the inflatable asteroid base, DB mentioned last year at EGX. I said small outpost and the like, NOT station. Please don't assume I want stations after I specifically stated that I did not. The OP probably doesn't want a station too, he probably is suggesting something on the lines of a small base you put down and upgrade with some defenses, but not make an invincible death star. Like the stations are currently.

You don't know that the solo players are actually vastly out numbering a majority of the players who work as a team The forums don't necessarily represent the statistics of the actual player base. Honestly the hysteria going around these forums against any sort of guild functionality is hilarious.

As for explorers and fuel rats and the like, well its not that hard to think how a small deployable outpust could benefit them, especially if they find someone stranded in need of repairs and more than just fuel. An explorer could have a "Home away from home" type deal if he plans on staying out of the bubble for a long period of time.

As for the OPs request to have upgrade-able bases ( no I am not saying make death stars or stations ) to fight over resources, sure why not? How does this harm solo players? How? I mean that's not what they want so fine they don't have to, there is plenty of other things a solo player can do in the 400 billion star systems we have to play around in. It doesn't affect me, I can still go join in the faction and PP content, I can still fight in combat zones, and mess around in hazardous resource sights. There's no gates or choke points, so a player can just pass through a system with having a small chance of getting caught, I can still land on moons, and do the whole exploration thing, I can still do the piracy thing, etc.

An upgradeable base could be just a simple as starting out with something basic, then you upgrade it's capabilities by adding resources to it, you and a group of players could do it, or hell a dedicated SOLO player could do it.

You mention Mechwarrior online and I find it hilarious you bring that game up. Mechwarrior online is failing not just because the lack of solo play. But the lack of a true mechwarrior like experience, the tactics and strategies fought in those battles are just boring and stupid. compared to mechwarrior 4, A solo player could go have a decent match in an FFA in mechwarrior 4, the maps were bigger the mechs didn't move so twitchy they actually had weight to them. FASA for the g win. You go into mechwarrior online, and it is a joke. It's got stellar graphics, but it just fails so hard in the gameplay department. Matches are too quick, you get one spawn time, makes it pretty bad for ANY player doesn't it? Half the time your spending is at a bloody menu waiting for a match, that's a stupid mechanic in itself. The solo players are , because nothing short of the new battletech turn based game, they will never probably in the next 10 years see a proper mech simulation campaign.

Mechwarrior online doesn't just fail at solo play, it fails at gameplay, it doesn't matter if its a team oriented game, I've had way better experiences in Mechwarrior 4 than that game. Mechwarrior online is a game that caters to team players and has 0 solo play content, you can't even practice . It's so archaic and korean it es me off. Then you have Elite that has an okay solo experience, and an okay multiplayer experience, you and 3 friends can have a good time specially when horizons comes out. Elite dangerous has some form of multiplayer, it's limited, but it's there.

The irony of EVE is that, that game has more solo content than Elite dangerous and that's a corporation oriented game.

I want the positives of guild play, but I also want none of the negatives (at least those that I perceive to be negatives) and I'm not sure it's possible to have the former without the latter. And if that's the case, then I'd rather not have guild-based play I think.

I believe FD can achieve this, not all of the negatives will be gone, but most of the severe negatives will definitely be mitigated to a point where it is insignificant. As for the mode switching, that's gotta come with a balance perhaps, personally I feel as the 3 modes are a detriment to the game as a whole. However adding some guild/faction competition over small portions of territory in a given system, I don't mean controlling an entire system here, I'm talking about a moon or a cluster of densely rich asteroids, nothing beyond that. Could probably be managed. This is why I keep saying small bases, Small outposts, not something people would rabidly dog pile on. hell even a solo player might be crazy enough to run the operation him/herself, it could be something solo players could still do.

 

[Kristov]

Or, disable and loot. Treated as no other than equal to a pirate's outpost. That way it's not interfering between modes.
Still have an outpost to call home, dock your ships, a trading system that involves the crafting of the upcoming "boosts". A place to keep modules, or commodities.

It's the middle-ground to all parties.

---------

Obviously in open you'd be faced with the Cmdr attempting to raid your base. In solo you wouldn't. As far as loot goes, RNG based?

------

I'm pretty certain OP is not looking forward to having this outpost burned to the ground. Just having a place to store assets and interact with as a money-sink.

The bases in Horizons that have been talked about, all temporary, which is why we get to attack them, and they have defenses which are there in ALL modes of play, not just Open. A player controlled base would be the same, people keep overlooking this, any base would have the SAME settings across all modes, FD doesn't set different options for different modes for the game, just the player's ability to come into contact with other players, it's a network setting essentially, not a game state setting. That player controlled base would have the same defenses and weaknesses regardless of the mode, Group mode would actually be the best way to attack an enemy base as it happens, as you can not only group up but you will NOT encounter anyone but those you've allowed in your group, allowing for attacks on a base that the enemy can't defend against. Again, modes aren't game states, they are network states, so there's no difference between them for the game.

And the OP is obviously expecting someone to attack his base, and he's wanting, specifically, group oriented special game mechanics so the group can upgrade the base. He obviously didn't think about the modes and how that rather negates any ability to defend your base with anything but automated systems. I'm a PvP gamer who's used to guilds going after each other directly, so naturally I'm going to look at the most effective way to attack the enemy base, exactly as I've done it in many other games. NPC's could be used, when we get that ability, to defend the base, but they ARE NPCs, which means most attacks on bases will take place in Group, not Open. FD could always set it so that bases could only be attacked in Open, but that's going to make all the groups who ONLY play in Group upset, and we're still annoying the solo majority either way.

Have you got a source for this?

As for DB's opinion regarding guilds... the only time I've heard him mention anything about it, he stated that it was something they were looking at, but wouldn't do it like other games. He's not a fan of "griefing". That's it. There are plenty of ways to prevent griefing without preventing guilds.

EGX 2014, nice long video, David's pretty clear about his thoughts on groups. He's also mentioned it many times in various interviews and posts, it's not a new thing, it's not a secret by any means. The video you refer to, 2 weeks ago, Horizon's stream he mentions he might put in something more for groups, and IF he does, it won't be like any other game does it. Again, might and if, no timeline, no promises of it happening. His problem with groups isn't JUST the griefing, it's the content that is group oriented, which cuts out anyone not in a group. Like I said, he's not been secretive about his feelings on this or his reasons for those feelings.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I made a transcript of David Braben talking about guilds after being asked about them at EGX 2014...

Question:


"I'm going to act as The Voice Of The Internet and be Twitch again. And someone asks: Will there be a Corporation, Guild, or Clan System, within Elite: Dangerous?"

David Braben:


"Right there is the, sort of friend's alliance, ehm but at least to start with we've not got Guilds and Clans. Ehm, I think what we don't want is this... this... the whole game to become ossified very quickly, where the... y'know you have to join one or the other to have any fun gameplay."


"I do like... essentially it's the game of the freedom of the individual, the ability to just go out and do your own thing."


"Ehm, y'know the... guilds can very easily become almost like Mafiosi saying 'Don't travel here or we'll kill you'."


"So, um, I think it's something we will look at and are looking at, ehm, but friends groups which are very much more constrained, I think are great, but then when it gets much beyond that it becomes a bit... it doesn't feel right."

So he's clearly very uncomfortable with the whole idea of guilds, and it showed. His body language during that segment showed great discomfort.

"Friends groups/ friend's alliance" is what we now know as Private Groups.

And he is right. Guilds just don't feel right for this game. It's not suited to it, and guilds are not suited to the game, nor, as Kristov points out, do the game mechanics support guilds. Wings is about as guild-like as you're going to get, along with player factions - notice how FDEV have cleverly done player factions - they are entirely NPC-based. And by that - I mean they are entirely based around the PvE/BGS mechanism of the game - which, again, is how FDEV would implement any further move towards it's own realisation of guild support. It's very clever.

I don't think guild support - if it happens any further - will be in the form all you who are wanting it are expecting. And thank goodness for that.

 

[Kristov]

You're driving the station argument down my throat and I don't like it. I never suggested a station, a station is a station, a base is a base. A base is far too loose of a term to just throw "station" at it. When I see the term base, I'm thinking along the lines of the inflatable asteroid base, DB mentioned last year at EGX. I said small outpost and the like, NOT station. Please don't assume I want stations after I specifically stated that I did not. The OP probably doesn't want a station too, he probably is suggesting something on the lines of a small base you put down and upgrade with some defenses, but not make an invincible death star. Like the stations are currently.

You don't know that the solo players are actually vastly out numbering a majority of the players who work as a team The forums don't necessarily represent the statistics of the actual player base. Honestly the hysteria going around these forums against any sort of guild functionality is hilarious.

As for explorers and fuel rats and the like, well its not that hard to think how a small deployable outpust could benefit them, especially if they find someone stranded in need of repairs and more than just fuel. An explorer could have a "Home away from home" type deal if he plans on staying out of the bubble for a long period of time.

As for the OPs request to have upgrade-able bases ( no I am not saying make death stars or stations ) to fight over resources, sure why not? How does this harm solo players? How? I mean that's not what they want so fine they don't have to, there is plenty of other things a solo player can do in the 400 billion star systems we have to play around in. It doesn't affect me, I can still go join in the faction and PP content, I can still fight in combat zones, and mess around in hazardous resource sights. There's no gates or choke points, so a player can just pass through a system with having a small chance of getting caught, I can still land on moons, and do the whole exploration thing, I can still do the piracy thing, etc.

An upgradeable base could be just a simple as starting out with something basic, then you upgrade it's capabilities by adding resources to it, you and a group of players could do it, or hell a dedicated SOLO player could do it.

You mention Mechwarrior online and I find it hilarious you bring that game up. Mechwarrior online is failing not just because the lack of solo play. But the lack of a true mechwarrior like experience, the tactics and strategies fought in those battles are just boring and stupid. compared to mechwarrior 4, A solo player could go have a decent match in an FFA in mechwarrior 4, the maps were bigger the mechs didn't move so twitchy they actually had weight to them. FASA for the g win. You go into mechwarrior online, and it is a joke. It's got stellar graphics, but it just fails so hard in the gameplay department. Matches are too quick, you get one spawn time, makes it pretty bad for ANY player doesn't it? Half the time your spending is at a bloody menu waiting for a match, that's a stupid mechanic in itself. The solo players are , because nothing short of the new battletech turn based game, they will never probably in the next 10 years see a proper mech simulation campaign.

Mechwarrior online doesn't just fail at solo play, it fails at gameplay, it doesn't matter if its a team oriented game, I've had way better experiences in Mechwarrior 4 than that game. Mechwarrior online is a game that caters to team players and has 0 solo play content, you can't even practice . It's so archaic and korean it es me off. Then you have Elite that has an okay solo experience, and an okay multiplayer experience, you and 3 friends can have a good time specially when horizons comes out. Elite dangerous has some form of multiplayer, it's limited, but it's there.

The irony of EVE is that, that game has more solo content than Elite dangerous and that's a corporation oriented game.



I believe FD can achieve this, not all of the negatives will be gone, but most of the severe negatives will definitely be mitigated to a point where it is insignificant. As for the mode switching, that's gotta come with a balance perhaps, personally I feel as the 3 modes are a detriment to the game as a whole. However adding some guild/faction competition over small portions of territory in a given system, I don't mean controlling an entire system here, I'm talking about a moon or a cluster of densely rich asteroids, nothing beyond that. Could probably be managed. This is why I keep saying small bases, Small outposts, not something people would rabidly dog pile on. hell even a solo player might be crazy enough to run the operation him/herself, it could be something solo players could still do.

It doesn't matter WHAT you call it, you want a permanent habitation for the group, regardless of term used for it, that is what it is. Groups will want that base to have defenses, they'll want to be able to limit access to it. These things WILL impact all players whether you think they will or not.

And I don't have to make guesses what the majority of the Elite Dangerous player base is, it's solo players, same as every other online game out there. Your MWO rant tells me a lot more than you realize, such as your inexperience with online games. MWO isn't MW4, which was actually a horrible multiplayer game in case you missed that and literally killed the franchise. MWO isn't dying, it's player base is increasing. It does indeed have a HORRIBLE single player experience, because it is NOT a single player game, it is an online only PvP only team oriented game, advertised as exactly that, offered to us in 2011 as exactly that and nothing more. I'm a Founder, I know exactly what Russ offered me when MWO was announced, online only team oriented PvP combat, nothing more. I'm terribly sorry you bought a team oriented PvP only game and didn't get the single player experience you were expecting, that's just horrible, seriously. Your requests for more team oriented things in Elite Dangerous now makes a lot more sense. You've bought a single player game and aren't getting that deep team experience you bought the game for.

Do you see the problem here?

 

[Roybe]

I made a transcript of David Braben talking about guilds after being asked about them at EGX 2014...



So he's clearly very uncomfortable with the whole idea of guilds, and it showed. His body language during that segment showed great discomfort.

"Friends groups/ friend's alliance" is what we now know as Private Groups.

And he is right. Guilds just don't feel right for this game. It's not suited to it, and guilds are not suited to the game, nor, as Kristov points out, do the game mechanics support guilds. Wings is about as guild-like as you're going to get, along with player factions - notice how FDEV have cleverly done player factions - they are entirely NPC-based. And by that - I mean they are entirely based around the PvE/BGS mechanism of the game - which, again, is how FDEV would implement any further move towards it's own realisation of guild support. It's very clever.

I don't think guild support - if it happens any further - will be in the form all you who are wanting it are expecting. And thank goodness for that.

He's not against the idea of guilds or groups...he's against game design where guilds can 'ossify' the game. His discomfort is with control. That is why the proper argument ins't against the 'ownership' of anything in this game. Because 'ownership' will never happen. Look at Horizons. We will have starports...wanna bet that if they do not start out as faction 'owned' they will be shortly? That means that player groups COULD own a star port. However, that also means, as a faction in the game other player groups could force that 'ownership' out of the player groups hands and into the other factions in the system.

That is all this game will ever be. Bank on it! There WILL be a lot more group functions coming into the game...however...none of them will ever be designed to break this particular rule...no one will ever 'block' other players from access to any major features within the game. This is because DBOBE will probably stop it from occurring. This whole games equilibrium is based on the collection of PVE trophies to outwit or outplay another group. There can never be a way to prevent that from occurring because...that would break the modality the game offers.

I enjoy discussing this topic because there are so many that have the idea confused that guilds=control. For most player groups...it doesn't....and they know that. They might sit in Open and shoot and kill anyone that passes through their system...but that is only role play. They know that they are not stopping anyone from entering in there system. People might not like that type of game play...bad choices made on that persons part then. It is allowed and expected by everyone...youse makes your choices youse takes your chances.

There is no control of the game board within this game...never will be. The control is all in the hand of the player base. Choose where you play, choose how you play, choose when and where to fight...or run.

 

[Kristov]

He's not against the idea of guilds or groups...he's against game design where guilds can 'ossify' the game. His discomfort is with control. That is why the proper argument ins't against the 'ownership' of anything in this game. Because 'ownership' will never happen. Look at Horizons. We will have starports...wanna bet that if they do not start out as faction 'owned' they will be shortly? That means that player groups COULD own a star port. However, that also means, as a faction in the game other player groups could force that 'ownership' out of the player groups hands and into the other factions in the system.

That is all this game will ever be. Bank on it! There WILL be a lot more group functions coming into the game...however...none of them will ever be designed to break this particular rule...no one will ever 'block' other players from access to any major features within the game. This is because DBOBE will probably stop it from occurring. This whole games equilibrium is based on the collection of PVE trophies to outwit or outplay another group. There can never be a way to prevent that from occurring because...that would break the modality the game offers.

I enjoy discussing this topic because there are so many that have the idea confused that guilds=control. For most player groups...it doesn't....and they know that. They might sit in Open and shoot and kill anyone that passes through their system...but that is only role play. They know that they are not stopping anyone from entering in there system. People might not like that type of game play...bad choices made on that persons part then. It is allowed and expected by everyone...youse makes your choices youse takes your chances.

There is no control of the game board within this game...never will be. The control is all in the hand of the player base. Choose where you play, choose how you play, choose when and where to fight...or run.

Well said +1

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

He's not against the idea of guilds or groups...he's against game design where guilds can 'ossify' the game. His discomfort is with control. That is why the proper argument ins't against the 'ownership' of anything in this game. Because 'ownership' will never happen. Look at Horizons. We will have starports...wanna bet that if they do not start out as faction 'owned' they will be shortly? That means that player groups COULD own a star port. However, that also means, as a faction in the game other player groups could force that 'ownership' out of the player groups hands and into the other factions in the system.

I gave you +rep because this is a good post.

Player groups could own a station as you say - but only within the PvE/BGS mechanism of the game. They 'own' the station by way of their virtual, electronic faction, which just happens to be the name these groups requested to FDEV.

That is all this game will ever be. Bank on it! There WILL be a lot more group functions coming into the game...however...none of them will ever be designed to break this particular rule...no one will ever 'block' other players from access to any major features within the game. This is because DBOBE will probably stop it from occurring. This whole games equilibrium is based on the collection of PVE trophies to outwit or outplay another group. There can never be a way to prevent that from occurring because...that would break the modality the game offers.

That's kind of what I was trying to say, albeit not as eloquently as you That's kind of my point - it's all done via PvE trophies, and precisely for the reasons you state.

I enjoy discussing this topic because there are so many that have the idea confused that guilds=control. For most player groups...it doesn't....and they know that.

It may well be that's the case, but you only have to look at these forums and see that there are quite a lot of pro-guild posters who don't seem to get that. I get it, because I know that the entire game is based entirely on the BGS and the PvE mechanisms FDEV put in place from the start. It's the bedrock and foundations of the whole game - we players are merely interacting with that PvE background simulation - the ships are the user-interface. The planets, stars, stations, NPC's etc. are the veneer over it.

They might sit in Open and shoot and kill anyone that passes through their system...but that is only role play. They know that they are not stopping anyone from entering in there system. People might not like that type of game play...bad choices made on that persons part then. It is allowed and expected by everyone...youse makes your choices youse takes your chances.

I don't consider myself as a roleplayer. When I'm playing this game, it's me in front of a monitor ooh'ing and ahh'ing at the wonders of the game. Sometimes, just sometimes I've found myself immersed in it completely, but on the whole I'm too much of a programmer seeing glimpses of what's going on 'behind the curtain' and too much of a realist to roleplay.

I do understand however that others DO like to roleplay and they can get deeply embedded into it. But that makes me feel awkward for them. Just one of those things. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the game, as, each to their own.

However, I do have a fond attachment to ED's predecessors and I can see FDEV are trying really hard to keep to the spirit of those predecessors - as well it should - and when I see calls for full-on guild support, that makes me shake my head in dismay, because to me, that would turn ED into something that is "not-Elite". It would lose its innocence, or purity, if that makes any sense.

So far, FDEV have done a pretty bloody good job in trying to keep ED as an "is-Elite" experience, for those like me who wish their game experience to be so. They've done that by for example making participating in Powerplay opt-in, and that's genius. I can safely ignore Powerplay and stay oblivious to the virtual shenanigans of that Board Game In Space, and play "is-Elite". I can choose to play Solo and be oblivious to other players or player groups and play a game that "is-Elite". Or I can choose to play in a private group like Mobius and possibly meet and exchange greetings with like-minded CMDRs in a game which is still "is-Elite". I could, if I wanted to, choose Open, which is just a different level of game client connectedness, and encounter any random player, or player-group - who want to play this game in a manner which is jarring to my idea of what "is-Elite".

That's where my objections about guild support come into play here, for any changes made to the game which move it towards the type of guild-support that people are calling for, has the potential to affect not just Open mode, but Group or Solo mode (which remember is just varying degrees of P2P connectivity), in a manner which
affects all modes, and which might turn the game experience into something which is "not-Elite". THAT, is what troubles me the most.

There is no control of the game board within this game...never will be. The control is all in the hand of the player base. Choose where you play, choose how you play, choose when and where to fight...or run.

That sounds great, but the only way I can see for FDEV to add the type of guild support others are calling for, and keep the "is-Elite" experience for players like myself, is to make guild support and tools entirely opt-in, exactly in the same way that Powerplay is opt-in. The only way I can see of doing that, is to introduce a Start Menu option named "Guild Mode" or similar. The game mechanism as it stands could do this. In "Guild Mode", group tags are visible, whatever menu options there are for player groups are visible, and players who want to be in guilds could match up in game instances with each other. Anyone else in Solo, Group, or Open would be blissfully unaware of the guild shenanigans. Guild players still affect the BGS in the same way as the other 3 modes.

Only this, I feel, would preserve "is-Elite". I think this would be the best compromise and the only way to implement guild tools and support whilst still preserving "is-Elite" for the rest of the playerbase who are quite satisfied not seeing guilds in an Elite universe.


Regards.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

However, I do have a fond attachment to ED's predecessors and I can see FDEV are trying really hard to keep to the spirit of those predecessors - as well it should - and when I see calls for full-on guild support, that makes me shake my head in dismay, because to me, that would turn ED into something that is "not-Elite". It would lose its innocence, or purity, if that makes any sense.

I fondly remember playing Elite in 1984 as well. (Elite, why 1984 wasn't like 1984)

Time marches on, you can never go back, etc.
The internet barely existed back then, TCP/IP became the standard in 1983, just a year prior. That was the conception of what we call the Internet. Elite 2 was release on the cusp of the commercially available internet...

So this Elite is the first to be fully capable for multiuser play, and it should be different because of that.

Remember the past, embrace the future.

 

[Talarin]

So he's clearly very uncomfortable with the whole idea of guilds, and it showed. His body language during that segment showed great discomfort.

"Friends groups/ friend's alliance" is what we now know as Private Groups.

And he is right. Guilds just don't feel right for this game. It's not suited to it, and guilds are not suited to the game, nor, as Kristov points out, do the game mechanics support guilds. Wings is about as guild-like as you're going to get, along with player factions - notice how FDEV have cleverly done player factions - they are entirely NPC-based. And by that - I mean they are entirely based around the PvE/BGS mechanism of the game - which, again, is how FDEV would implement any further move towards it's own realisation of guild support. It's very clever.

I don't think guild support - if it happens any further - will be in the form all you who are wanting it are expecting. And thank goodness for that.

Except, of course, the last several pages of discussions in which (some of) those who are advocating improvements for player grouping and multiplayer have been putting forward ideas and suggestions which entirely fit into the ethos, structure and style of the game right now as it stands, whilst those who are against continually trot out the same tired points which have been responded to repeatedly.

If the strength of your argument is that David Braben and his development team aren't clever enough to come up with systems which can improve the experience for those who want to be able to play effectively alongside their friends without introducing the ossification he expresses concerns about, then I'd suggest that your argument is exceptionally weak - because they clearly can.

Seriously, just try and engage with the discussion a bit, won't you? If you're so convinced that it can't and won't happen why bother posting at all? Leave more constructive users to their merry musings.

Edit: Apologies - the conversation moved on somewhat, which I didn't see.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

fold

*plonk* *wave*

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

I fondly remember playing Elite in 1984 as well. (Elite, why 1984 wasn't like 1984)

Time marches on, you can never go back, etc.
The internet barely existed back then, TCP/IP became the standard in 1983, just a year prior. That was the conception of what we call the Internet. Elite 2 was release on the cusp of the commercially available internet...

So this Elite is the first to be fully capable for multiuser play, and it should be different because of that.

Remember the past, embrace the future.

Read my new response above. I have found a way for that future to be "embraced" without destroying the past.

EDIT: Actually you are responding to that - but only one paragraph and you left out the rest of it

Regards.

 

[Talarin]

That's where my objections about guild support come into play here, for any changes made to the game which move it towards the type of guild-support that people are calling for, has the potential to affect not just Open mode, but Group or Solo mode (which remember is just varying degrees of P2P connectivity), in a manner which affects all modes, and which might turn the game experience into something which is "not-Elite". THAT, is what troubles me the most.

But that's simply not true. Some people are calling for things which aren't realistic or desirable, but others are not. There are stages of guild support, and the lightest of those do not need to change the game in any way - and as I've tried to describe, could be leveraged to improve the game for everyone.

The only way I can see of doing that, is to introduce a Start Menu option named "Guild Mode" or similar. The game mechanism as it stands could do this. In "Guild Mode", group tags are visible, whatever menu options there are for player groups are visible, and players who want to be in guilds could match up in game instances with each other. Anyone else in Solo, Group, or Open would be blissfully unaware of the guild shenanigans. Guild players still affect the BGS in the same way as the other 3 modes.

There are other, better ways to do it - I refer to you previous posts in this and other threads. And the intent here is just as divisive as "if you don't want to risk being ganked by a group you should play solo". It's in-game Nimbyism.

 

[Avetorian]

It doesn't matter WHAT you call it, you want a permanent habitation for the group, regardless of term used for it, that is what it is. Groups will want that base to have defenses, they'll want to be able to limit access to it. These things WILL impact all players whether you think they will or not.

And I don't have to make guesses what the majority of the Elite Dangerous player base is, it's solo players, same as every other online game out there. Your MWO rant tells me a lot more than you realize, such as your inexperience with online games. MWO isn't MW4, which was actually a horrible multiplayer game in case you missed that and literally killed the franchise. MWO isn't dying, it's player base is increasing. It does indeed have a HORRIBLE single player experience, because it is NOT a single player game, it is an online only PvP only team oriented game, advertised as exactly that, offered to us in 2011 as exactly that and nothing more. I'm a Founder, I know exactly what Russ offered me when MWO was announced, online only team oriented PvP combat, nothing more. I'm terribly sorry you bought a team oriented PvP only game and didn't get the single player experience you were expecting, that's just horrible, seriously. Your requests for more team oriented things in Elite Dangerous now makes a lot more sense. You've bought a single player game and aren't getting that deep team experience you bought the game for.

Do you see the problem here?

How the hell does my MWO rant tell me my inexperience with online games? Explain that one genius, because that's pure ignorance talking. MWO is a joke, the bloody reviews for it when it came were practically damning for the game itself. Sorry I offended you by speaking of the truth. As for my experience in online games, I've been playing them for a long bloody time. I've played EVE for 10 years and several other online games before EVE, I've played various other games online as well after spending so much time in EVE, I don't feel like naming them, I already did in one of my previous posts. I guess you never really played Mechwarrior Living Legends, that was a more true Mechwarrior game then MWO is. I mean come on, Nascar? really? If you know a damn thing about battletech you should know that the way matches are carried out are hardly true to the lore. MW4 did not kill the franchise, Microsoft did, now PGI is practically taking a dump on the grave with its match making fest. MW4 had a much better multiplayer experience, I could play with my friends, decide the maps I'm gonna play on, set up scrims against other clans. Etc. Um yeah sorry if you feel MWO is good then, good for you. Serously again putting words in my mouth. I never said I asked for a damn single player game when I tried MWO, I told you why solo players don't like it, and not even just solo players. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mechwarrior-online enjoy the reviews for the uninformed, there's plenty of reasons why it got that score, hint it's not just because of the lack of solo play.

I didn't buy a single player game, Elite dangerous was never advertised to me as a single player game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE8B4KptyVI "I bring friends" Oh wait.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-4xHtCP1Yo "help is on the way" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISR4ebdGlOk Plenty of people working together here and flying together in this trailer. Did you even watch EGX? they talked about Multi-crew ships. Hell in their early news letters they talked about player controlled capital ships!!!

And no, I never said a base had to be permanent, I never even suggested permanent control over anything. You are per-defining what a base is in the worst way then forcing that definition on me, and the OP. The bases don't have to be permanent, and there's no need to lock them down. Even if you could, I'm sure they could be hacked and have their defenses destroyed, specially after players have long abandoned them and moved on.