I respectfully disagree with you. Their is nothing stopping a solo commander from forming a wing or group of commanders to accomplish a fleet size missions.
Plus in my humble opinion most of the mechanism needed are already in game
Serious discussion on proper fleet mechanics
- Thread starter Vicktore Beskor
- Start date
Plus in my humble opinion most of the mechanism needed are already in game
It is a shame that this discussion has not been started by another user.
Thanks man [heart]
in the background simulation??can you choose a system for expand? tell me how plz.
I apologize for misunderstanding your question
Last edited:
This quote proves you said otherwise: "I would like to see minor factions give out missions that would need more than one commander to complete it. Maybe even more than one wing but several wings working in tandem towards multiple goals with multiple locations at the same time." I don;t see the Player Faction system supporting this.
This is actually a rather interesting question given the current mechanics. How would a fleet mechanic work with many different approaches to organisation? While Viktore, the unchallenged Sky Marshal of the mighty and unbreakable Earth Defense Fleet, may be in a position to either designate a human resources manager or run that aspect of the game himself (and I believe the Frogs have an HR office too,) that doesn't address the problems that having designated players for particular roles brings. In other words, any pledge mechanic would have to be capable of dealing with both "fleets" who put all their eggs in one basket (with the concomitant opportunities for internet drama), and "fleets" that don't want to or can't do so by dint of how they organise.
As I said in a previous post, the tools determine the interaction. I'd love to hear the Dear Leader Sky Marshal Viktore Beskore's thoughts on this issue.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
This only works when you answer the questions put to you.
Last edited:
I feel their are many player minor factions who would not only appreciate and or participate in this type of content.
I have played many MMO's where group content has not only been a challenge but very enjoyable. Their could a lot of ways this could be a lot of fun.
Fleets could have to use many type of ships at the same time like haulers and combat ships together,you would have to consider wing make up "rolls within the wing"
Last edited:
Take this next comment in the spirit in which it is given; a friendly nudge. If you want what you find in other games, go play those games. You can play more than one at a time. E|D doesn't, and shouldn't seek to pattern it's experience from any other games. FD have done a pretty good job of doing this.
I know you think it would be fun but, where should all of your suggestions fit within the development plan? Are your suggestions something that should happen ASAP, or are they just ruminations on the distant future of E|D? There is too much that needs doing, in my opinion, to distract the developers with prejudicial content. Any time/treasure put into E|D by the developers should strictly be for content that benefits all players, as individuals.
I sense an undercurrent of other things in this thread. Seems like I am missing something...
The OP provided an idea (for full disclosure one that I agree with in theory in many respects) yet the "opposing" posters, and their responses, seem...odd? Kind of meh?
Yes I have the feeling of a man that missed the information bus.
The OP provided an idea (for full disclosure one that I agree with in theory in many respects) yet the "opposing" posters, and their responses, seem...odd? Kind of meh?
Yes I have the feeling of a man that missed the information bus.
Personally, I like the idea that you could take a mission that would 'require'/benefit from being carried out by a Wing, like, a heist mission to steal some cargo from pirates, you might need a ship with a mining laser to crack the compound, scooping and then hightailing it out in a hauler, with your mates flying interference. It'd encourage 'winging up' and give groups of mates flying together something fun to do.
Of course, nothing to stop you trying to solo it...
Of course, nothing to stop you trying to solo it...
I am just trying to keep the discussion moving forward. Everyone can do their due diligence and read though the thread. So we don't talk in circles and get nowhere.
Keeping the discussion moving, without coming to grips with the issues involved serves no purpose, but to keep the topic on the front page. This starts to look like a policy to evade and avoid the bugaboos your proposals bring up. FD doesn't just count the number of days a topic is discussed. They read the discussion. Make the case, dancing around the issues won;t win the day.
Last edited:
That is a good question. I would have to say FDev could answer that better than me. But I do agree it would have to have some kind of balance to its effect on the influence of a minor faction.
I would like to point out I don't not have all the answers. These are only suggestions.
Perhaps I have lost it in the 25 pages(!) here but what EXACTLY are your objections?
Let me start off by saying you and I fundamentally disagree about the validity of haveing fleets in game which is fine by me. But I started this thread not to talk about the fine details of "PFM" more of the broad strokes.
This is a very complicated and controversial topic with many effects on many aspects of the game that is why it needs to be discussed.
Till the developers tell us what they have planned or their definitive fleeings on this topic it is our responsibility to keep talking about it and make all of our opinions known. I feel we all have to keep an open mind on this topic and discuss it like mature adults.
That is all I am trying to do.
And again I will admit I do not have all the answers.
Last edited:
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Depends which issue you're asking about.
Depends who you're asking.
As well as objections, there are unanswered questions regarding scope, functionality and intent.
25 Pages is nothing. Try the UA thread.
Hey Vicktore!
Maybe you should update the OP with the outcome of our discussions so far, so that people don't have to trawl through 25 pages of messages.
It would help keep the discussion moving and not get stuck going in circles.
Yeah, you'd have to look at the total. I have been commenting on, and discussing the many and varied suggestions the OP makes.
In a nut shell, I don't care for the way in which Cmdr Beskor would like to see a Corp/Fleet/Guild mechanic develop in E|D. I argue that content created should focus on benefiting the players as individuals, not as groups. I argue that this whole discussion should be filtered through what we have already; the Player Faction system. I argue that FD shouldn't be/feel compelled to cover old, worn ground when considering Player Groups, and that they should create an Elite solution to the OP's concerns.
Another, and most important, issue following through this whole conversation is the scope of a Cult/Guild/Fleet mechanic, as posed by the OP. There is a consensus, I believe, that certain tools should be available, in game, to Player Groups. This includes Comm tools, Organization/Membership tools, and some form of Identification/Tags for group members. But, when this compromise, middle ground, agreement is met, the scope instantly expands into what I argue against. As in: 'Give them an inch, and they take a mile'.
Now, ask the OP to explain EXACTLY what his ideas are.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I am happy to discuss things in as fine a detail, or as broad a stroke as you like. What does 'keeping the thread moving' do, but keep the topic on the first page, when all of the questions and opposition are left without answers?
Last edited:
So why is your player faction known as the 'Earth Defense Force' and not the 'Earth Defense Fleet'?
You also mention that you're suggestions are more broad strokes than they are specific ideas, but in the first few pages, you list very specific ideas. Your only "broad stroke" is the wing mission ideas since you want them but have very little idea and apparently too little understanding of the BGS to suggest how to implement them into the game in such a as to keep them from being a one-stop-shop for system domination by a group of coordinated players.
The problem with this thread is that every time Morhgan, or anyone else, has shut down your argument for more expansive player controls over fleets and content, you've attempted to change the subject and move on from the argument without every providing a counter argument to back up your original statement.
I agree with you and I will do my best to summarize my opinion and feeling on this topic at my earliest convenience. I can do so now because I am at work posting on my iPhone. And well all know who much fun that is lol
So why is your player faction known as the 'Earth Defense Force' and not the 'Earth Defense Fleet'?
You also mention that you're suggestions are more broad strokes than they are specific ideas, but in the first few pages, you list very specific ideas. Your only "broad stroke" is the wing mission ideas since you want them but have very little idea and apparently too little understanding of the BGS to suggest how to implement them into the game in such a as to keep them from being a one-stop-shop for system domination by a group of coordinated players.
The problem with this thread is that every time Morhgan, or anyone else, has shut down your argument for more expansive player controls over fleets and content, you've attempted to change the subject and move on from the argument without every providing a counter argument to back up your original statement.
Link: http://earthdefensefleet.net/
I HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BGS.
Because you and I differ in opinions dose not mean you know more than me.
Maybe you are the one who can not see the future potential of the BGS because you are so close minded that nobody else's opinion matters.
To be honest I have set the bar high so that it challenges FDev thinking about the potential of what Elite Dangerous can become. I would like to see the game evolve over time to reach out to a broad Spectrum of players. It would be very disappointing if Elite Dangerous becomes a niche game that only appeals to one kind of gamer.
Their are those who like to go solo in elite and their are those who like to join a community like the Earth Defense Fleet. I know this because as one of the leaders of the fleet I get to reads several Applications a week from commanders who started as a solo commander or played in Mobus and got bored with the game. And only by joining the Earth Defense Fleet have kept them playing and buying expansions. To be frank some of commanders did not purchase Horizon till after joining the Earth Defense Fleet. And many said they were on the verge of not playing anymore.
Because Elite Dangerous was first released without "PFM" available dose not mean it can not evolve into a game with meaningful "PFM". Much of what I suggested already has mechanism in game I only suggest that some time to be spent on designing content and mechanics that appeals to those who choose to play the game in a community as well as those who play solo.
And it is unfair in my so humble opinion that a solo commander would try and block that type of development because he chooses not to participate in that content. Remember we all make the choice whether or not to join a community or not nobody is forcing you. Many successful games have group/fleet content why not Elite Dangerous.
I am only trying to make suggestions and point out some fundamental flaws that I see in game.
I Like would like to farther point out that a solo commander manipulating the BGS of a small minor faction in the middle of nowhere needs a different type of tool set than a Community of commanders manipulating several systems in a very heavy populated area of the human bubble.
Last edited: