Serious discussion on proper fleet mechanics

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Odious or obvious?

Seriously though - in order for discussion you'll need to present exactly what you want.

So far I've got a chat room, a tag, and a way of seeing who is online.

You missed the bit about benefits for working the BGS.
Not sure how that qualifies as QoL, but free stuff is free stuff.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I didn't miss it - I laughed and watched it scuttle away

 

[Robert Maynard]

This was the most recent version of the list:

1-to better represent ourselves in game as a organized fleet
2-better organizational and Communication tools
3- fleet size content "fleet missions"
4- sharing of resources

Sharing of resources is a bit ambiguous - it could be a Fleet ship rental programme, Fleet bank, Fleet commodity / material bank....

Also, no mention is made, on this list, of controlling aspects of station management - like ship / equipment discounts, etc..

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I feel many solo commanders worry about some kind of fleet advantage or gated content.
What they fail to realize is,that is not the point of "proper fleet mechanics "or(PFM).
"PFM" is about "QOL" for fleets

What you might do, in order to get more people responding postively, is to stop calling them fleets. Fleets conjures in the mind EvE style gameplay, which many people are automatically against.

What you might be much better off doing is referring it to as group management features, although that could be confused with Private Group management (which also needs work). Hmm.... clan also conjures the wrong image for many as well... urk... may be best to settle for player group features.

And yeah, you see, since you didn't define what "proper" fleet management was, many people would have automatically assumed things like gated conent or groups with members having to kowtow to the leaders for protection and benefits. Like the bank idea, that one is probably never going to be implemented by FD, because it allows individual players or groups of players to lord it over others, and that is i think is the sort of thing FD won't touch with a 10' pole of disarming.

I strongly recommend you ask for this thread to be closed, start again, stop calling it fleets, define what you are talking about, avoid any mention of features that would unlikely to be accepted by FD, and then ask your question. Sure, you'll still get some who will be against, but you might find the general feedback more favourable.

Also, you might want to get rid of that EvE avatar. It isn't doing you any favours when you start talking about features like this. Your call of course.

 

[Mc80]

What are not so obvious are the QoL changes for other players.

There are none. It´s aimed towards player groups, not single players. Player created groups should be tied to the bgs which in turn could be expanded to give outfitting benefits or similar stuff if you work its economy enough for example. A good way of making single players benefit from supporting a player faction could be by pledging, as already suggested. Those players would get just marginally worse benefits, as they would act more as a militia for the group instead of having to be part of said group and being able to act on their own desire instead of following a chain of command, if the group is even organised that way. If fleets get content you only can beat by working in a group, that should be no issue for you. Elite is not a game where you can solo anaconda wings, it is clear that you should avoid missions missions you cannot carry through. That by no means should be a reason to exclude such content from the game just because it does not cater to you.

Again this is not about single players. It´s about giving player groups the tools and content they want without compromising the solo players to an unacceptable degree.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

1-to better represent ourselves in game as a organized fleet
2-better organizational and Communication tools
3- fleet size content "fleet missions"
4- sharing of resources
I have said this over and over again I feel it is redundant to keep asking me the same question over and over.

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


I feel that if "proper fleet mechanics " was in game one of the advantages would be being able to identify hostile commanders and griefers and pirates. Bad guys always like to stay in the shadows this would bring them into the light.

Ah! I see you did list some things at last!

Identification would be nice. Aligning to the minor factions would work i think, and also make it so nobody controls who can join who. Remember in ED, the design mentality is nobody can control what another person can do. No player is a grand admiral. By aligning to factions would mean that you join others also joining that faction. That handles (1)

(2) yes, and this would help with powerplay as well. Faction and powerplay comms, bulletin boards, whatever, super.

(3) Well, this is tricky considering instances and stuff. What you'd probably end up with is something like community goals for fleets (read: factions). However, we have discussed this before. You can't have the groups themselves creating missions without some sort of control/oversight or automatic system. That's going to be tricky. Let groups create their own missions and you are going to have them spamming them for credits. If it could perhaps be tied to the BGS and that is used to trigger events, maybe it would work. Like if you go into expansion, then an automatic faction (fleet) mission starts that helps you gain a foothold in the system. If you fail, you enter the system at 1% influence. If you succeed, you can get it with a higher influence, perhaps up to 30% or something, making taking the system over easier. Again though, it would have to be open to anyone else who has joined this faction.

(4) Only if you want those resources to be shared with everyone who has joined your faction. There might have to be a timer on joining/leaving factions so people can't abuse it, and have to be part of the faction for X number of weeks before you can take advantage of any pooled resources. Perhaps a reputation system within the faction, that limits how much you can take from the pooled resources per day/week. Perhaps give ranks/rewards for those who contribute to the shared pool.

I think you are being overly optimisitc about how it will help identify griefers, they can always remain outside the group system. You can't assume that every unaligned person is a griefer or hostile. You go around killing unaligned people in your own system who are not wanted, you end up getting wanted.

A nice starting point for this sort of thing though would be for FD to allow players to align with a minor faction, and take it slowly from there, adding in extra features over time. See how things develop.

As to why?: People often like to play together, and this version of "fleets" wouldn't ecxlude people playing in private groups and solo. Would allow cross mode (and cross platform - Xbox and possibly in the future PS4!!!) working together for a common goal.

As to why not?: I can't think of too many reasons as to why not, although naturally there would be concern about thin edge of the wedge, which is why I advocate a system that does not allow for people to control the groups. Not against some sort of reputation thing for the groups, so people who contribute a lot get status, and perhaps even some sort of voting system to decide whether the next fleet mission (assuming auto generation or something) is a combat mission or an exploration mission, whereby higher ranked members get more of a say. Also why i think it might be best for FD to take baby steps here with it. They are not experts at this MMO thing, they don't have the experience, and its something they need to develop organically. Not dive straight in with it. Otherwise we will end up with something that works like powerplay >.<

 

[Deadspin]

I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but controlling who can join a faction if it was a player created faction is indeed a thing I would want.

Lets take CODE and SDC as an example. Were there no gate on who could join a player created faction, anyone could throw on the CODE/SDC tag of their choice and crash a CG (not that I think either would complain about this). This would also be the same for any other group. So a member of CODE or SEPP could throw on a Diamond Frogs or EDF tag and go running about local player space causing havoc in the name of someone they're not actually associated with.

So, for player created factions, much like a clan, there would need to be some measure of control given to 1-3 members of said player faction for who exactly isn't or is allowed to wear said affiliation on their sleeve.

 

[Andovar]

What you might do, in order to get more people responding postively, is to stop calling them fleets. Fleets conjures in the mind EvE style gameplay, which many people are automatically against.

I think Aunt has a good point here. Probably best to refer to it as what we already have, Player Minor Factions.
So FD has given us PMF's.(almost the same acronym there ) Now they just need to add on a few of these bells and whistles to manage them.

Vote? Where?

Here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/288901-Second-Bubble-Colonisation-Discussion

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but controlling who can join a faction if it was a player created faction is indeed a thing I would want.

Lets take CODE and SDC as an example. Were there no gate on who could join a player created faction, anyone could throw on the CODE/SDC tag of their choice and crash a CG (not that I think either would complain about this). This would also be the same for any other group. So a member of CODE or SEPP could throw on a Diamond Frogs or EDF tag and go running about local player space causing havoc in the name of someone they're not actually associated with.

So, for player created factions, much like a clan, there would need to be some measure of control given to 1-3 members of said player faction for who exactly isn't or is allowed to wear said affiliation on their sleeve.

And this is where it all falls down. That control is an illusion.

The mechanics of guilds turn into a simple numbers game.
More members is better than less because 'guild mechanics' require numbers to be effective.
Larger guilds naturally attract more members for the protection it inherently provides - becomes self-perpetuating.
Leaders cannot account for the actions of their members.
In an argument about who did what, the member's word is naturally trusted for no other reason than membership.
Giant cluster of pseudo-political for no other gain than the personal ego of 'leaders' who want to play admiral instead of space pilot.

So, as previously stated, tags provide nothing good.
The lack of them requires personal name recognition of who contributes to your shared objectives and who doesn't, naturally limiting the size of player groups and actually promoting closer in-game ties.

The tools to manage those objectives, membership, communication, etc. are all better provided by other software than anything that FD could do, thus it is not worth wasting valuable development time on anything other than 'space pilot' stuff.

 

[DukeIronHand]

I think it's a grand idea in theory.
I am a little confused by the apparent suspicion being displayed here by some members.

What are you worried about? It's obvious but no one has come out with good reasons for it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Leaders cannot account for the actions of their members.
In an argument about who did what, the member's word is naturally trusted for no other reason than membership.

... unless the game itself would hold the entire group accountable for the actions of its members - and apply sanctions in various jurisdictions as necessary....

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Group of ships come together, it's a Wing.
Group of Wings come together, it's a Squadron
Group of Squadrons come together, it's a Group
Group of Groups come together, it's a Fleet.

Right now, a Wing is the biggest thing we have in-game mechanics to organize and communicate with effectively. However, there are no end of the number of 3rd party means to continue this onward.
And this is neither a bad nor a good things - there are pros and cons to both.
The biggest con I can see is one of server resources. Adding in additional communications channels and hierarchial structure will take up additional resources that could be put to other uses.
The pros are pretty obvious - giving people more control over how they choose to organize within a single application, rather than relying on outside applications.

As for the fears that large player groups could be disruptive of, well, anything... Elite is different in that aspect with Open, Solo and Private Group modes. If a large player group is being disruptive, the rest of us have the option to bail into Solo or Private Groups - or Frontier could very quietly, shunt disruptive groups into a "penalty box" - a private group specifically for disruptive entities with or without warning.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

... unless the game itself would hold the entire group accountable for the actions of its members - and apply sanctions in various jurisdictions as necessary....

Let's have effective crime and punishment for individual players before we start that conversation!
Besides which any such mechanisms would inevitably lead to 5th column activities being the most effective way to disrupt a group.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Group of ships come together, it's a Wing.
Group of Wings come together, it's a Squadron
Group of Squadrons come together, it's a Group
Group of Groups come together, it's a Fleet.

Past the "When Wings come together it's a Squadron" point, I would expect that forming the instance with all members may become an issue.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Let's have effective crime and punishment for individual players before we start that conversation!
Besides which any such mechanisms would inevitably lead to 5th column activities being the most effective way to disrupt a group.

If group membership controls were to be introduced in some form then 5C activities should be able to be curtailed (at least to some extent).

 

[arxerisdam]

i think is a great idea the moment we can walk around stations and inside ships.

and players can start owning Stations.

Fleet management will have to come sooner or later because there are hundreds and thousands of pilots who belong to minor factions.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I'd love to see fleets try to get together on the junk that passes for consumer networking kit

They could quite easily do it in the middle of nowhere with no NPC's to be rendered, out in the middle of nowhere with just other CMDR's to shoot - but that can already be done in a private group

 

[Vicktore Beskor]

I think now that we see their is a good number of commanders who are in favor of "proper fleet mechanics " I think we can discuss some of the mechanics we all would like to see.

So I am going to make a list of Basic mechanics and we all can discuss them.

1- fleet Communication- chat,mail
2- fleet beacon-just like the wing beacon
3- fleet storage- ability to share resources
4-fleet missions
5- fleet tags
6- fleet property- station,outpost,spaceports
7- fleet registration- being able to manage the recruiting and removal of commanders from the fleet

Now I would like to point out these are just some mechanics That came off the top of my head. I am not saying what is good or bad. All I am doing is listing some of the mechanics I would like to see so we all can discuss them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think now that we see their is a good number of commanders who are in favor of "proper fleet mechanics " I think we can discuss some of the mechanics we all would like to see.

So I am going to make a list of Basic mechanics and we all can discuss them.

1- fleet Communication- chat,mail
2- fleet beacon-just like the wing beacon
3- fleet storage- ability to share resources
4-fleet missions
5- fleet tags
6- fleet property- station,outpost,spaceports
7- fleet registration- being able to manage the recruiting and removal of commanders from the fleet

Now I would like to point out these are just some mechanics That came off the top of my head. I am not saying what is good or bad. All I am doing is listing some of the mechanics I would like to see so we all can discuss them.

No problems with Nos. 1, 2 or 5.

No.7 - would probably be expected - it would cut down on 5C activities.

No.4 - sounds like Wing or Multi-Wing missions (anything bigger may be a non-starter due to instance size / connection issues).

No.3 - sounds like a Guild Bank - if anything could be withdrawn from the pool of resources and then sold - would allow a form of twinking of new members.

No.6 - the man behind the game has said that it's not an Executive Control game.

I would propose:

8- Crime and Punishment system would treat the Fleet as a single entity when applying bounties / sanctions / punishments for the transgressions of members - as well as applying same to individuals.

 

[Mohrgan]

Any features to be included to the Player Faction mechanic should be Comm's, or Cosmetic in nature. There should be no Cult ownership of any assets except through the BGS like we have now, there should be no sharing of wealth or materials, and there should be no content specific to Corps. In the end, being in a Player Faction shouldn't impart any advantages to a player. No discounts, banks, or beacons.

The idea is to offer player groups an in-game method to communicate, coordinate, and identify each other, not to make being a member an advantage in personal progress. Taking development time away from issues/features that effect everyone, just to benefit those in Groups is just plain wrong.

The single biggest contention with Fleet mechanics is their scope. Once it is conceded that some tools for Cult organization are worthy, it becomes open season to include those game breaking features mentioned above. Think Player Factions, not Fleets. Think integration with the BGS, not control of it. Think group organization, not profit sharing.