Might very well add flavour to the game, but like most flavours, while some might like it, many will find it distasteful. I, for one, would only find player groups/guilds acceptable if we're just talking things like guild chat, grouping and maybe, just maybe, a guild 'home' on an NPC base (note, not guild owned base). If it were to go down the path of group/guild ownership of in-game assets like bases or territory, then that's going down I path I don't want, so I, for one, would find it distasteful and it would be bye-bye open as far as I'm concerned.
Why no ingame player groups?
- Thread starter Caliber_az
- Start date
Might very well add flavour to the game, but like most flavours, while some might like it, many will find it distasteful. I, for one, would only find player groups/guilds acceptable if we're just talking things like guild chat, grouping and maybe, just maybe, a guild 'home' on an NPC base (note, not guild owned base). If it were to go down the path of group/guild ownership of in-game assets like bases or territory, then that's going down I path I don't want, so I, for one, would find it distasteful and it would be bye-bye open as far as I'm concerned.
There are a huge amount of player groups in game and all of the associated political schenanigans. However all of the "guild" stuff is maintained, as others have pointed out, on Discord, inara or another 3rd party piece of software. Ingame, folks can wage BGS wars and direct PvP attacks (assuming the group players in Open).
I'm the opposite of some of the folks that have posted here in that it's the player groups that keep me playing the game (I've been playing since Beta and am one of the leaders of a player group with just under 1000 members).
I'm the opposite of some of the folks that have posted here in that it's the player groups that keep me playing the game (I've been playing since Beta and am one of the leaders of a player group with just under 1000 members).
Last edited:
Because it'd be a total waste of resources to implement it when external tools like Discord do a better job anyway.
In fact it's the total lack of in-game group support that has made the player groups in ED as coherent as they are.
I'm sure the new Ship-ID will fulfill whatever desperate need there is to tag ships with a group ID.
In fact it's the total lack of in-game group support that has made the player groups in ED as coherent as they are.
I'm sure the new Ship-ID will fulfill whatever desperate need there is to tag ships with a group ID.
Last edited:
This is how we rolled in Urban Dead, a browser game so basic you had to manually refresh the page to update events. My horde was one of the premier and longest-running entities in the game in part due to our external comms. We ran a large forum, a wiki, and had multiple IRC channels, paired with a very solid command structure that was yet still open and fun. We were large enough to utilize all available resources despite the utter lack of that stuff in the game, even to the point where group affiliation as far as the game was concerned was literally only just typing a group name into a field if you felt like it.
More ingame tools of some type wouldn't be amiss, but at the same time being able to choose "all the internet" as your source of grouping tools is far more customizable for each group's needs. Maybe Elite just needs more liaison datatools like the new hi-vol-output log; having Elite accept data in the same way could work out. It doesn't need to do everything if more things can communicate with Elite that do those functions better.