Serious discussion on proper fleet mechanics

[Jaiotu]

See, this is where you're wrong and you just don't seem to get it. When we say "ED is not Eve" we mean that ED is not a game that is about group mechanics, it's a game about individuals. You can be as proud of your "fleet" as you like, but ED isn't about that, and introducing it (as you keep on wanting/requesting/demanding) would fundamentally change the game from ED into something else.

Oh and I ride too... Triumph here.

Dangerous is not just about individuals. That isn't the way Frontier sold the game at all. If it was truly about individuals then they would have kept Offline mode. They want us to share the galaxy. What sold me on Elite: Dangerous was Frontier's constant chant of "cooperative multiplayer".

Power Play is NOT about individuals. It is about coordinated efforts of a large number of players.

Wings is NOT about individuals.

Community Goals are about the Community.

We're soon to be getting Multicrew. Again: Not about individuals.

I'd agree that historically the Elite franchise has been about the individual but that has more to do with the state of online gameplay at the time those games were produced.

 

[Mavisreed]

You can be as proud of your "fleet" as you like, but ED isn't about that, and introducing it (as you keep on wanting/requesting/demanding) would fundamentally change the game from ED into something else.

It's a bit funny how some players speak on behalf of FDev as if their opinions were solid facts. This is a multiplayer game, as far as I know.
It seems most members of the community are psychics of some sort and can read Braben's mind

Not too long ago a new player made a thread asking if FDev would be willing to implement clan mechanics into the game and his question was met with vitriol and hostility. Honestly, I'm amazed by this community.

 

[Sandmann]

Dangerous is not just about individuals. That isn't the way Frontier sold the game at all. If it was truly about individuals then they would have kept Offline mode. They want us to share the galaxy. What sold me on Elite: Dangerous was Frontier's constant chant of "cooperative multiplayer".

Power Play is NOT about individuals. It is about coordinated efforts of a large number of players.

Wings is NOT about individuals.

Community Goals are about the Community.

We're soon to be getting Multicrew. Again: Not about individuals.

I'd agree that historically the Elite franchise has been about the individual but that has more to do with the state of online gameplay at the time those games were produced.

Your logic is that because there is an open mode ED is about groups, and you appear to be using that to support a call for fleet mechanics, guilds, etc? Correct me if that's wrong.

That's actually pretty flawed logic, however let's run with that for a minute and use the same argument: if ED were about guilds, fleets, etc they would have instituted them. The fact that they didn't means the most they want is casual groups of four.

However, that's all very tenuous, extrapolated logic, so instead let's look at statements from fdev and dbobe. ED is about one man in a spaceship. ED is not about business management. ED does not support guilds because they don't like the idea of gangs bullying players. They only want casually formed groups of no more than four. All these are verifyable statements and are not open to question or interpretation. If you want to know what ED is "meant to be" there is only ONE source, it's creators, and they have veen very clear on the subject.

It is also about "communities" which are individuals coming together on a casual basis for a common goal. That is why we have wings, powerplay, and communities goals, and why we will soon have multicrew. None of this is about large, formal, permanant groups - quite the opposite.

ED is a game about individuals - one man in a spaceship. Sometimes that one man does things with other people, but that's not the core of the game.

 

[Aexrael]

Considering that communities sink or swim their online games, it is odd that a modern game forgoes any form of traditional clan/guild/"whatever designation you want to use" social structure. The almost sole reason why certain MMOs persist to this day is because people have a community of others they enjoy hanging out with and can come back to.

The fear of murder hobo groups or all out anarchy are really unfounded, it's already in the game. Giving everyone tools for establishing a signature and communication across the game won't change that for the worse.
The almost anthropophobia on display from certain comments are downright sad. If you dislike interacting with other players that much and only hang out in Solo 24/7 then this really doesn't concern you or will affect you in the slightest.

If you are a new player being able to see other commanders and their affiliated Tags instead of having to go to a third party site to browse forums could be a great way to ease in new players to the Elite fold and could help those Groups/Clans/Guilds/Fleets already in the game to help the newbies out easier.

Or if you are a player on the fence about whether to play Open or Solo, or whether you are a player playing with a larger group in Private Groups then this very much concerns you and you should welcome the possibility to interact with a broader base of players and the opportunity to meet new people, or to simply interact with your existing group with in game tools rather than third party.

Being able to see the affiliated tags of someone could also warn you of the murder hobos already in the game so you can get the heck out of dodge.

Phase 1

• Allow players to establish a uniquely named Fleet for 10 million credits or some other arbitrary credit value.
  • Allow the Fleet Leader to set a [Fleet_Tag] representing the full name of the fleet. e.g. the fleet is named Patriots of the Flying Moose, the Fleet Leader chooses the tag to be POTFM.
• Allow the Fleet Leader to invite people on his/her friendslist to their fleet, giving that player the [Fleet_Tag] upon accepting, it will be displayed next to their commander name when targeted by other commanders.
  • All ships belonging to the same Fleet becomes equipped with an encrypted transponder allowing members to see each other in the Galaxy Map similar to having them on your friendslist, but this saves having hundreds of players on your friendslists.
• Give the Fleet 1 encrypted communications channel which only the fleet can use to communicate among each other, regardless of range, activity or game mode.
  • Allow the Fleet leader to purchase an additional channel for an arbitrary amount of credits, which permits the Fleet Leader to invite non-Fleet members to for the purpose of communication and chat.
    • The channel can be password locked.
• Allow the Fleet leader access to a modest roster overview of all members of the fleet.
  • Allow the FL the possibility to name and set "ranks" or positions within the Fleet individually for each member.
    • e.g. Initiate, Applicant, Member, Organizer, Fleet Leader etc.
  • Roster displays the Name of the Player, Last Time Online, Fleet Position/Rank, Members Platform (PC, Mac, XB1), Game Mode (Open, Group, Solo), Active Ship, PP affiliation and Number of Members total.
• Another tab allows the FL to write up the background information for the fleet, the modus operandi.
  • Parts of this page can be set to public, so it can be read and browsed by other players via the Fleet overview (New Menu).
• Should the FL go inactive for an extended period of time, the ownership defaults to the next oldest member. This can be granted via petition to Support.

Phase 2, Minor faction affiliation, minor faction creation, PP faction pledge, station ownership/station rental/base of operations is for an entirely different discussion and can come at a later stage.

 

[Mavisreed]

However, that's all very tenuous, extrapolated logic, so instead let's look at statements from fdev and dbobe. ED is about one man in a spaceship. ED is not about business management. ED does not support guilds because they don't like the idea of gangs bullying players. They only want casually formed groups of no more than four. All these are verifyable statements and are not open to question or interpretation.

Sorry, Mr. Braben, but "bullying" (whatever is that supposed to mean) is already happening. People constantly complain about griefers.

It would seem you are not very familiar with your own game, Mr. Braben.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sorry, Mr. Braben, but "bullying" (whatever is that supposed to mean) is already happening. People constantly complain about griefers.

It would seem you are not very familiar with your own game, Mr. Braben.

The quotes can be dug out as necessary - those familiar with the game's development know where to find them....

 

[Jaiotu]

Your logic is that because there is an open mode ED is about groups, and you appear to be using that to support a call for fleet mechanics, guilds, etc? Correct me if that's wrong.

That isn't my logic at all. All of the available game modes exist and each one of them interact with each other. Players sticking in Solo effect the gameplay of players in Open or Private, albeit limited to PP or the BGS. Frontier was initially hesitant about "guilds" in the game but a large portion of the community ignored this and started banding together to achieve shared goals in the game. Eventually Frontier listened to the community and now Player Minor Factions exist in Elite: Dangerous and are recognized by the Developers.

That's actually pretty flawed logic, however let's run with that for a minute and use the same argument: if ED were about guilds, fleets, etc they would have instituted them. The fact that they didn't means the most they want is casual groups of four.

They did institute them, just not from day one. "Guilds" or "Fleets" in Elite Dangerous are known as "Player Groups and Minor Factions". There is a whole thread about it here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...inor-Factions-Submission-Form-and-Information

However, that's all very tenuous, extrapolated logic, so instead let's look at statements from fdev and dbobe. ED is about one man in a spaceship. ED is not about business management. ED does not support guilds because they don't like the idea of gangs bullying players. They only want casually formed groups of no more than four. All these are verifyable statements and are not open to question or interpretation. If you want to know what ED is "meant to be" there is only ONE source, it's creators, and they have veen very clear on the subject.

They have been very clear on the subject and what they have said has evolved over time. Early comments from the developers indicated that they were hesitant about allowing "guilds" in the game. This attitute changed because people are social animals and players of Elite: Dangerous are people. We started forming groups even though the game lacked the mechanics for it. I was operating in a viable fleet flipping systems before the "Wings" release or Power Play or the eventual insertion of Player Groups and Minor Factions. More recently, during LaveCon, Michael Brookes was queried about Minor Faction Tags and said that they are probably a good idea.

There was an interview with Sandro Sammarco back in June that posed the question, "The core structure of Elite: Dangerous had always encouraged players to work together ... so why not let players build ships and squads whose success or failure would hinge on such teamwork?" Sandro's answer was “It wasn’t our intention to create these roles but we’ve got these tools. Let’s go down that path.”

In short: Frontier's vision for Elite: Dangerous is evolving and it is evolving toward social interaction among players.

It is also about "communities" which are individuals coming together on a casual basis for a common goal. That is why we have wings, powerplay, and communities goals, and why we will soon have multicrew. None of this is about large, formal, permanant groups - quite the opposite.

Except when Frontier inserted Player Groups and Minor Factions they explicitly created the groundwork for formal, permanant groups. Earth Defense Fleet has expanded to seven systems. And we're still growing.

ED is a game about individuals - one man in a spaceship. Sometimes that one man does things with other people, but that's not the core of the game.

I totally disagree. Elite's gameplay may be about the single player in his cockpit (soon changing with multicrew) but the core of the game, as mentioned in the interview with Sandro, has "always encouraged players to work together"

 

[William J Smith]

You may all be wondering why I keep bringing this topic up. Let me explain. I think many of you feel I am narcissistic megalomaniac and that I sit in front of my PC wearing my Sky Marshall outfit. Well you could not be farther from the truth. I am a simple truck driver from NYC and I am also a biker who owns two Harley's.
So what dose that have to do with elite, well nothing but that dose mean I am not what most people think I am.

After reading this thread, I suspect you are a full time elite sky marshall who has a hobby of driving trucks in NYC [big grin]

Although, And heres my take on things.

I'd love to see guild/faction tags inplemented by Fdev in some way, because it would give the members belonging to their group, and more importantly

When I come into a system in open (as I always do) I could see if the various hollow squares belong to the system, are invading the system, or belong to a pirate group or are downright psychopaths.
Ok its not much knowledge but it helps my feeling when all 4 groups try to punch holes in my hull and show me what my ship looks like when it explodes...

Bill

<<is now on a federation hit list just because I had a hold full of drugs...... oddly in an EDF system [mad]

 

[Jaiotu]

Bill

<<is now on a federation hit list just because I had a hold full of drugs...... oddly in an EDF system [mad]

Don't do drugs Bill. Drugs are bad.

 

[goemon]

For someone who dose not fly in a fleet or act in any fleet activities this dose nothing for them I agree. This is not about making the solo experience better this is about making the fleet experience better.

i mainly do BGS work, when i'm in the bubble. with player groups.

i clearly see, that there are group-management features missing, like:
- private group management (better ways to manage members of a private group)
- friends management (ways to friend members of a group as bulk, and ways to kick players from such a list)
- setting up goals with progress visible for everyone, or for everyone in a group, like "doing x missions for faction z", or "trade with xxx profit" (because you will otherwise very often overshoot...)

basically to play the BGS game better with a larger (>10-20) group of people. when doing BGS work for large groups, i very often resort to manipulate the BGS only monday-wednesday, because less "noise"/less "friendly fire".

but what you suggest, is not about making the BGS game better as it is (with expansion/states as its rewards), but changing it.

it is not about making the group experience better as it is, but introducing a different way of group game.

you call that fleet.

it resembles more, what powerplay is supposed to be (without restricting access to a power). you can pledge to a power, you get bonus and discounts by rank etc. maybe you should take part with the earth defense fleet at the next dangerous gaes, and work at getting a power?

minor faction/BGS work is more like patriotism or idealism - shaping the galaxy in the way you want it for everyone, because you love it (your system, your faction, your groups style of doing things).

 

[Sandmann]

Sorry, Mr. Braben, but "bullying" (whatever is that supposed to mean) is already happening. People constantly complain about griefers.

It would seem you are not very familiar with your own game, Mr. Braben.

You really should watch the video I (obliquely) referenced before mocking what you patently don't understand.

 

[sutex]

Fleet Mechanics ... did someone give me a Cue . .enter stage my tried old thread , just like this one, only joking [where is it] ,

UPDATE 2016 Carriers, Proximity Chat ( hey people need to get around in style )

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=239890&p=3711624#post3711624

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

All of the available game modes exist and each one of them interact with each other. Players sticking in Solo effect the gameplay of players in Open or Private, albeit limited to PP or the BGS.

This is quite fundamental to this game.

There is just one game mode - or rather, one game.

Every player who clicks on Play is playing in one galaxy, with one universal set of data, and on the same server back-end. Everyone.

The only difference between Solo, Group, and Open, is the degree to which the game client connects with other game clients. That's it.

FDEV decided from the get-go to design the game this way - the basic premise of the game is it's just "You and your ship".

Time and time again, we see an argument such as "But these Solo players are affecting MY universe!" - no, they're not, their universe is the exact same universe, as there is only one universe and one set of data game-wide.

I would also suggest that, seeing as groups of "One man and their ship" are already managing to play together, communicate with each other, and act as a group, that FDEV's time and resources are better spent adding new content to the game, rather than trying to add things which groups of players are already achieving through the use of Teamspeak, Discord, Inara etc. The very fact groups of individuals are using these things already makes any discussion about in-game tools moot, IMO.

Lastly, don't get me wrong - I would love to see something like a minor faction tag on my name. Being able to pledge my allegiance to the Dark Wheel would be awesome, in my book.

But Minor Faction tags should be just an extension to the way FDEV are implementing player groups - entirely through the PvE/BGS system.

 

[Sandmann]

That isn't my logic at all. All of the available game modes exist and each one of them interact with each other. Players sticking in Solo effect the gameplay of players in Open or Private, albeit limited to PP or the BGS. Frontier was initially hesitant about "guilds" in the game but a large portion of the community ignored this and started banding together to achieve shared goals in the game. Eventually Frontier listened to the community and now Player Minor Factions exist in Elite: Dangerous and are recognized by the Developers.



They did institute them, just not from day one. "Guilds" or "Fleets" in Elite Dangerous are known as "Player Groups and Minor Factions". There is a whole thread about it here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...inor-Factions-Submission-Form-and-Information



They have been very clear on the subject and what they have said has evolved over time. Early comments from the developers indicated that they were hesitant about allowing "guilds" in the game. This attitute changed because people are social animals and players of Elite: Dangerous are people. We started forming groups even though the game lacked the mechanics for it. I was operating in a viable fleet flipping systems before the "Wings" release or Power Play or the eventual insertion of Player Groups and Minor Factions. More recently, during LaveCon, Michael Brookes was queried about Minor Faction Tags and said that they are probably a good idea.

There was an interview with Sandro Sammarco back in June that posed the question, "The core structure of Elite: Dangerous had always encouraged players to work together ... so why not let players build ships and squads whose success or failure would hinge on such teamwork?" Sandro's answer was “It wasn’t our intention to create these roles but we’ve got these tools. Let’s go down that path.”

In short: Frontier's vision for Elite: Dangerous is evolving and it is evolving toward social interaction among players.



Except when Frontier inserted Player Groups and Minor Factions they explicitly created the groundwork for formal, permanant groups. Earth Defense Fleet has expanded to seven systems. And we're still growing.



I totally disagree. Elite's gameplay may be about the single player in his cockpit (soon changing with multicrew) but the core of the game, as mentioned in the interview with Sandro, has "always encouraged players to work together"

I'm typing on a cellphone and I couldn't be bothered trimming the quote to the relevant bits. please forgive me.

You are misconstruing player groups, guilds, and fleets... they're very much not the same thing.

- A player group is run by the game and players are nominal members but they don't run it, and can only influence it by banging on the bgs, same as everyone else.
- A guild is run by the players, typically controls territory, has a shared treasury, has a structure of superiority, and often performs "raids" and other hostile group actions. Player groups can't do this.
- Fleets are groups of ships that move and act together as a group. Player groups can't do this in groups larger than four.

Misrepresenting the extremely restricted player groups as fdev's intent to backflip on everything they've said about guilds in game is disingenuous. Once you admit that player groups and guilds are not the same.thing, all your other supporting arguments crumble as they're all predicated on a false argument.

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

This is quite fundamental to this game.

There is just one game mode - or rather, one game.

[Snip]

But Minor Faction tags should be just an extension to the way FDEV are implementing player groups - entirely through the PvE/BGS system.

This guy makes sense. +1 to you

 

[Deleted member 38366]

To me it all sounds like "Fleet Management" might better be called "Group Management using in-Game provided tools and mechanics".

And that's definitely something I can get behind with.
When it comes to "I don't play in a Group/Lone Wolf, hence it doesn't affect, hence I don't support the notion", I only say V1.2 Wings was intruduced - yet not everyone does it. Or can't even (Solo Mode). Still, it's in a game for a good reason and very beneficial.

Personally, this is (pure theory) I could come up with in that whole Context :

A "Group Leader" (on whatever purpose or nature) has 40 friends online. That Grouping of Players has a common goal.
Group Leader - like a Wing Commander - opens his dedicated "Fleet/Tactical Management" Screen
- Groups up several Wings or individual Ships (not unlike many classic Strategy Titles)
- can assess their condition and composition
- issue orders to these
-> Receivers (individual Ships upto multiple Wings) receive their Orders via in-game Menu "Task Update" and then know their orders
- the Leader - a "Tactical Manager" - can then monitor the progress of the forces under his/her control

And all of a sudden, you have a means of in-game mechanics & control that allows to coordinate, monitor and task even a large number of CMDRs in order to achieve a specific goal.
Useful for Large Explorer Expedition leaders, Player Faction leaders, large force leaders or just an ad-hoc leader that might merely arrange Fighter Escort for friendly Transporters during a busy Community Goal.
All Members are granted IFF, so they know who's on their Team at all times, very similar to being in a standard Wing. Just on a potentially larger scale.

---------------- Minor Faction Support -------------------

As we know, supporting a Faction using the BGS is just that - you assist a Minor Faction, eventually allowing it to enter Boom, Win Conflicts/Elections and eventually Expand. Rinse & Repeat and see it spread.
Perks of doing that... BGS fun, grouping up with other Players for a common cause and the social interaction/fun that goes along with it.

At all this time, that Faction itself doesn't do anything. Just like PowerPlay, their leaders don't lead. Formally speaking, they don't even exist, short of having a 2D portrait suggesting otherwise.
Thus, all the work, set goals, achievements and ensuring their success is 100% Player-driven at all times. Absolutely Player-centric, they're the only ones in charge.

However, with that responsibility of "being fully in charge" come surprisingly little tools to actual excert that degree of control.
Depending on location, surroundings and number of Systems already Controlled, it's often very difficult or impossible to really "direct" the Faction.
Expansion? It does where it wants to. 100% Player input - nearly 0% Player Control. Nasty System inside 15.xLY with only 3 Factions in it? Will likely end up there. Much more sexy (think PowerPlay CC potential) System 10LY away? Nope, maybe next time. It's got 5 Factions.
Temporarily not interested in an Expansion? Faction will do it otherwise if over the Influence threshold. Can't really prevent it. No Control, short of using a "blunt force" tool like actively reducing the Influence everywhere <75%.

Implementing some tools to improve where all that invested work & effort is being directed to IMHO really would help making the BGS far more attractive.
Possibilites (just me thinking out aloud) :
- allow to "pledge" to a Minor Faction
- fill investment bucket with work such as Trade, Missions, Exploration data etc. as we do now (along with rising Influence)
- once bucket reaches "Investment Grade", permit all Minor Faction-pledged Players to vote how to invest
-> improve the Economy of an Outpost/Station/Planetary Base?
-> improve the Station Services of an Outpost/Station/Planetary Base?
-> improve the Outfitting of an Outpost/Station/Planetary Base?
-> improve the Shipyard of an Outpost/Station/Planetary Base?
-> being a Construction Project? Bigger Outpost? Bigger Station?
-> invest into an Expansion instead? Where to go? More input and a wealthier bucket could mean higher Expansion Range.
-> invest big time into Colonization instead? Where to go? A tiny Colony as a 1st foothold? An outpost? Planetary Outpost? A fully fledged Station?
-> increase the population of a System in order to have it grow? Might need a combination of above.

In context with above "Fleet Command", a Group leader could see i.e. Inputs (Trade/Map Data sales/Missions completed) given to every location his Faction exists in.
Very useful to coordinate and actually benchmark/measure Faction support throughout a bigger space, for example.

Overall, that's just a slightly different approach to existing things, albeit one that would extend the degree of control and the amount of Options presented to BGS Players. And it would offer scalability well beyond what we have now.

Again, all just musings about what "Fleet Control" could mean, so make of it what you wish.

-- edit --
lol, that was more than I intended to write - and it merely scratches the Ideas I'd have for such concepts on the surface...

But should Players never be supposed to be introduced into large-scale operations by the Game design in the coming years - disregard all of it.

 

[Vicktore Beskor]

Well, it won't go away while you keep making threads about it.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...to-elite-let-s-talk-about-what-is-needed-next
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/242275-Controversial-Gameplay-Mechanics
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/236057-In-game-fleet-management-tools

Not aware of any other user on this forum that is so persistent on the topic of fleet mechanics.

I think you do misunderstand what some people are telling you though. Its not that everyone doesn't want some of the features you want. Nor that FD do not want some of the features at some point. What many people do not want though is a step towards what you might view as being a "proper" MMO, especially one more like EvE. For those who want that style of game there is another game, called EvE surprisingly enough.

So sure, yeah, Wing mechanics could be expanded, more ease of group communications in game, perhaps some sort of group maangement features. Those sort of things. Maybe ways of aligning together. But FD have been pretty clear, this game will not become EvE in cockpits.

Thank you for bringing up some of my greats hits I think one of those thread got me band from the forum for a week. Good times, yes good times.

 

[Asp Explorer]

sniveling

I wish I was allowed to use that word again

The gang mentality does display interesting issues though. The need to "belong" to a projection of "strength" is strong in weak people. Percieved protection and ability to command respect and fear by association with an entity with a certain reputation for undesireable actions gives weak people an illusion of "power".

They do not see that their "need" is precisely what is holding them back from achieving things themselves. Group effort is always designed to transfer wealth and influence up the chain. It never distributes "force" or "power" to the lower tiers, as that nullifies the concept of "leadership" having any "authority". New members and lowrungs get bossed around by those above them - which is seen as right and proper - so instead of learning for themselves these poor sods spend their time on tasks appointed for them, reporting to the higher ups in the hope of "reward" - even if that reward is as basic as not getting beaten up that day. Sad really.

 

[Jaiotu]

I'm typing on a cellphone and I couldn't be bothered trimming the quote to the relevant bits. please forgive me.

You are misconstruing player groups, guilds, and fleets... they're very much not the same thing.

- A player group is run by the game and players are nominal members but they don't run it, and can only influence it by banging on the bgs, same as everyone else.
- A guild is run by the players, typically controls territory, has a shared treasury, has a structure of superiority, and often performs "raids" and other hostile group actions. Player groups can't do this.
- Fleets are groups of ships that move and act together as a group. Player groups can't do this in groups larger than four.

Okay. Some background. I'm not a gamer. I've never played an "MMO" that wasn't Elite: Dangerous. I don't really care about how other games define player groups and any distinction between Elite's Player Minor factions and any other games concept of "guilds" or "Fleets" is completely lost on me.

I'm an Elite player. I started playing Elite back in 1985 and it was this latest incarnation of that game that prompted me to spend thousands of dollars on a new computer, HOTAS, eye tracker, life-time pass, merchandise, books and whatever else I can get my hands on.

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

I wish I was allowed to use that word again

The gang mentality does display interesting issues though. The need to "belong" to a projection of "strength" is strong in weak people. Percieved protection and ability to command respect and fear by association with an entity with a certain reputation for undesireable actions gives weak people an illusion of "power".

They do not see that their "need" is precisely what is holding them back from achieving things themselves. Group effort is always designed to transfer wealth and influence up the chain. It never distributes "force" or "power" to the lower tiers, as that nullifies the concept of "leadership" having any "authority". New members and lowrungs get bossed around by those above them - which is seen as right and proper - so instead of learning for themselves these poor sods spend their time on tasks appointed for them, reporting to the higher ups in the hope of "reward" - even if that reward is as basic as not getting beaten up that day. Sad really.

EDF works entirely opposite of what you are talking about. Vicktore has always been quick to give sanction to any EDF commander who wants to do something 'different'. I operate in EDF under the banner of the EEF (Earth Expeditionary Fleet). I'm almost totally free to operate as I see fit with no restrictions. Vicktore has never used EDF to consolidate his own power, just encouraged us to 'create our own content'.

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

And that is precisely why I don't support facebook-gangs-in-space.

The ridiculous tribalism, the amateur tattoos and patches, the pretend paramilitary organisation, the implied violence for disobedience - it's all just sad.

Also - the pathetic need to support X because it's better than Y for reasons unknown. I've never met a Harley that is anything but a RDSOIM* on my Suzuki

*Rapidly Disappearing Small Object In Mirror

See? You just did what Vicktore did. Bikers always talk about their machines like all the other ones are something less. I'm pretty sure his comment was simply ordinary biker one-upmanship and nothing more.

 

[Jaiotu]

This is quite fundamental to this game.

There is just one game mode - or rather, one game.

Every player who clicks on Play is playing in one galaxy, with one universal set of data, and on the same server back-end. Everyone.

The only difference between Solo, Group, and Open, is the degree to which the game client connects with other game clients. That's it.

FDEV decided from the get-go to design the game this way - the basic premise of the game is it's just "You and your ship".

Time and time again, we see an argument such as "But these Solo players are affecting MY universe!" - no, they're not, their universe is the exact same universe, as there is only one universe and one set of data game-wide.

I would also suggest that, seeing as groups of "One man and their ship" are already managing to play together, communicate with each other, and act as a group, that FDEV's time and resources are better spent adding new content to the game, rather than trying to add things which groups of players are already achieving through the use of Teamspeak, Discord, Inara etc. The very fact groups of individuals are using these things already makes any discussion about in-game tools moot, IMO.

Lastly, don't get me wrong - I would love to see something like a minor faction tag on my name. Being able to pledge my allegiance to the Dark Wheel would be awesome, in my book.

But Minor Faction tags should be just an extension to the way FDEV are implementing player groups - entirely through the PvE/BGS system.

This is almost exactly what I'd want. Minor Faction tags would be awesome. I always thought of myself as a member of The Dark Wheel when playing back in the 80s. Sporting a "Dark Wheel" tag would be amazing!

 

[Asp Explorer]

See? You just did what Vicktore did. Bikers always talk about their machines like all the other ones are something less. I'm pretty sure his comment was simply ordinary biker one-upmanship and nothing more.

That was irony