Enlightning Man wrote:
QUOTE:
And if you could set up games, that there is only one player from each "league" allowed?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I actually fail to see such a huge problem with all the "Outs"... :dry:

If you could do that, I can't see how this couldn't work

Enlightning Man wrote:
QUOTE:
And if you could set up games, that there is only one player from each "league" allowed?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I actually fail to see such a huge problem with all the "Outs"... :dry:

Hmmm...I thought I had been clear on this. But, let me do a rundown of how I have seen this destroy other group activities;

A random community gathers to partake of a function, they are not intrensically united at any level, but through there activity they may unite for limited time and purpose.

A formalized structure is provided for uniting under limited circumstances. Some do and some don't (group mentality versus loner mentality).

Soon those formal groupings (the Ins) spread, in an exclusionary fashion, throughout the community...eventually taking over areas of activity not within there original limits. Once established at large the loners (the Outs) must organize to resist (becoming the Ins) or accept that there ability to function is limited to the activity allowed by the Ins. Those who seek to join the community must meet and accept any In policy (in this case probably level of tolerance) or be 'Out'cast if they choose to remain.

In the end, after much jostling the Ins will be seperated into a minimal number of 'clans' (as they are being called). The Outs who remain will be a continually diminishing number. New players will be relegated to the side lines, as far as assistance from experienced players, until they have passed through whatever gauntlet is devised, if they don't quite in frustration.

I have seen games that lasted a decade die from this kind of behavior.

I agree with Alphared, I think a clan structure would be disastrous. I too have seen many games ruined by the introduction or use of clans.

well official clans are better than unofficial ones, am I correct? At least then you know that they are in a clan together.

constantine wrote:
QUOTE:
well official clans are better than unofficial ones, am I correct? At least then you know that they are in a clan together.

Actually no, official clans are an encouragement, whereas unofficial associations of friends acting in concert are simply a fact of life. In the first instance you seek out an ever widening group of associates, they may be officially adversaries but they will quickly band together to enforce or attack any threat to there united perspective. Loose associations of friends, although not encouraged, are expected...there main difference is they are isolated and usually don't seek to band together with others. They are in a word 'safe' and easily avoided by those who don't wish to suffer their tactics, when it is made an officially sanctioned activity the option to avoid them is off the table.

Alphared wrote:
QUOTE:
... unofficial associations of friends acting in concert are simply a fact of life.
...
They are in a word 'safe' and easily avoided by those who don't wish to suffer their tactics, when it is made an officially sanctioned activity the option to avoid them is off the table.


How can you avoid something that you don't know exists? Take the example of Excaliber who reported of a gang of 5 players always playing together and ruling the games they play (obviously).

If you'd give them the possibility to form a clan every player would immediately see what she has to face when joining a game with them. This would make it possible to avoid them in the first place, wouldn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your concerns and I want to ask you to give some examples of games where this disastrous effect kicked in so I could have a look at them to see what went wrong.

Alliances (leagues/clans) are something I always regarded useful for building a community for a game And in my experience, at least in some ego-shooters I've been playing, it was always possible to avoid facing highly organized (and sometimes skilled) clan players by just checking the list of players when joining...

Those players who don't want to participate in clans could always sign up for games, where "multi-accounts for clans" are forbidden... This would nicely separate the different types.

Clans are far away from the top of our list, but we'll see if people are going to form unofficial clans. That's surely something we cannot (and would not) forbid and imho this would make it harder especially for newbies to avoid them.

But I'm always keen on learning from other people's experience so I'm deeply interested in games where you experiences this as being a problem.

I'm willing to discuss this with you guys to figure out a way where we could combine those two worlds. I'm sure it's possible

someone put a vote up... lets see what the community says... ive play against clans in others games and ive not had any issues

Enlightning Man wrote:
QUOTE:
Alphared wrote:
QUOTE:
... unofficial associations of friends acting in concert are simply a fact of life.
...
They are in a word 'safe' and easily avoided by those who don't wish to suffer their tactics, when it is made an officially sanctioned activity the option to avoid them is off the table.


How can you avoid something that you don't know exists? Take the example of Excaliber who reported of a gang of 5 players always playing together and ruling the games they play (obviously).

If you'd give them the possibility to form a clan every player would immediately see what she has to face when joining a game with them. This would make it possible to avoid them in the first place, wouldn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your concerns and I want to ask you to give some examples of games where this disastrous effect kicked in so I could have a look at them to see what went wrong.

Alliances (leagues/clans) are something I always regarded useful for building a community for a game :dry: And in my experience, at least in some ego-shooters I've been playing, it was always possible to avoid facing highly organized (and sometimes skilled) clan players by just checking the list of players when joining...

Those players who don't want to participate in clans could always sign up for games, where "multi-accounts for clans" are forbidden... This would nicely separate the different types.

Clans are far away from the top of our list, but we'll see if people are going to form unofficial clans. That's surely something we cannot (and would not) forbid and imho this would make it harder especially for newbies to avoid them.

But I'm always keen on learning from other people's experience so I'm deeply interested in games where you experiences this as being a problem.

I'm willing to discuss this with you guys to figure out a way where we could combine those two worlds. I'm sure it's possible :)

I have one very good example, it was a game that had organized teams, and in each incarnation the team size limit grew and grew, until finally the players themselves decided to create teams of teams...not to long after the game all but died. You will find the game is quite old, and there are a few versions now on the net to see what remains (a suggestion, consider if you are lucky enough to see a player that they may be an non-human bot). I know it isn't the same 'type' of game but I think it is a good example. Google 'Starshiptraders' or 'Ray Yeargin'.

Also I will answer the first question, Excaliber reported it, the secret is out and anyone who has informed themselves can in fact avoid them. Giving them and others an official venue for this activity would only ensure that others will follow there example, but with official sanction.

But you don't see that we might be able to limit the number of clan members in a regular game.

No, I wouldn't believe that if there was a working test game to prove it. Simply put there are always ways to get around limitation.

Firstly: Sorry I was not able to find out anything about the problems of Starship Traders...

To the post:

I honestly do not see that problem.

I see two possible cases:

a) A couple of players group together for their mutual benefit and score pushing / stats padding.
--> This can neither be avoided with or without official clans.

b) A couple of players group together in a clan to not only push their own score but also that of the clan for fame and glory in the clan ranking.
--> A clan would fight another clan, organize tournaments, private rounds etc. to battle out their own clan leader or the supreme clan of them all.
--> Players are marked as belonging to a clan.
--> Other players may choose to play games with only 1/2 members per clan allowed or they play as they want.

I believe, that only in scenario b) players have the information ready who is allied with whom.
If the clan players somehow have secret alliances with other players, those players will a) not add to their clan ranking and b), we would have the same situation as without clans, namely secret alliances between organized groups of players that cannot be avoided by others.



People who try to get around "the limitation" would do exactly what people do now and they would miss the possibility to really join their efforts and show officially, that they can rule the game.

So sorry, but I still don't see the problem.
(unless you simply don't like clans )