Slippery business here. Maybe we could limit those suggestions to Social tools, and save a lot of effort covering issues that have been covered many times before, in the last thirty times a thread like this has come up?
Serious discussion on proper fleet mechanics
- Thread starter Vicktore Beskor
- Start date
Slippery business here. Maybe we could limit those suggestions to Social tools, and save a lot of effort covering issues that have been covered many times before, in the last thirty times a thread like this has come up?
An easy example of the abuse of the 'Fleet Bank' mechanic seen in EVE* is that of infiltrators gaining access and then cleaning out the shared resources to a rival 'fleet'.
*DISCLAIMER - Never played EVE but was always very tempted.
Or joining a group for a quick boost, and then leaving to join another, possibly rival group, causing drama. As many ways as there are to use a mechanic, there are ways to abuse it. The more simple a system is, the less unintended consequences can arise.
Definitely want to avoid drama at all costs. I posted a suggestion thread containing only the ideas of Friend List Management, Group Tags and Offline Messaging here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ial-features?p=4612201&viewfull=1#post4612201
None of the more controversial features are mentioned.
Indeed.
I slogged through 16 pages of this. There are some solid speakers to this topic, but they do not side with Vektor.
For me the key thing against all the proposals from that side of the trench is the strict and boring hierarchical structure.
Single Sky Marshal and followers / plebs.
The key advantage of the situation as it stands is that Player Groups can organise in ANY way at all.
Once the Tools move in game - they become the only tools.
And everything I've seen proposed is about command control in the hands of one or very few.
How you communicate (TS / discord / voice / group forum / INARA/ Reddit / squad board / thread on this forum/ etc)
To some extent shapes what you can say.
For example - are the comms tools public? Do I get to see what your group is planning?
No? - okay so I've run some missions for your Minor Faction and I'm allied and I've turned on your decal - now can I see what you're planning?
No? - Okay so now I'm not joining your faction to Fifth Column you, I really want to join and be a useful member of the team, but Vektor is driving his Harley to Mexico to get some custom mud flaps and won't be back until next Thursday can someone else add me to the comms channel?
Maybe?
Great so I'm in, and I have some great strategic bit of play with a deadline how am I communicating that to everyone? Do I have to keep posting that message in the chat every five minutes to keep it visible because there's a big debate going on about the relative merits of twin chrome overhead underhangs.
Oh there's a bulletin board?
Or do we need a forum?
Oh and now somebody spotted that Marra has infiltrated and is wreaking havok with someone's marriage. She needs to be removed from the group, but everyone thought she was great and so she's an admin.
Does someone have to go explain what happened to Zac or Brett C, and does he have to give Marra a fair hearing - she's an admin after all. And actually her side of the argument was pretty convincing and Vektor can't be contacted because the Mexican mud flaps convention is in full swing and he's nursing a tequila hangover and a fresh tattoo.
I think Frontier have looked at Reddit and Discord and 4Chan and other places groups organise and have decided that there's a whole web full of tools to choose from. Not needed in game.
^This^
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yes, this is an unfair quote that entirely misrepresents what you said, but it's the single most powerful reason that we do not need formalised guild-level gameplay in E:D.
Last edited:
What I failed to mention is that the fresh tattoo reads:
"EDF: Their the best"
On the left cheek of his Rear Admiral.
Last edited:
Don't assume that your vision for Elite: Dangerous is the same as the developers. I hope you'll maintain this same attitude when we finally get player-owned stations. David Braben said we'll eventually get them starting around timestamp 23:20 in this video:
https://youtu.be/dJzizYUEF9c?t=23m20s
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I see we want to keep it classy. :|
Nice to see someone come at this with the right attitude. These forums are full of people posting threads about features "they" would like to see in the game. It doesn't actually mean they'll happen but sometimes we just want to talk these things through regardless. If Frontier doesn't want to support tools that allow players to interact as "fleets" then more power to them. It's their game. Doesn't mean we need to shut down the conversation though. Have some rep.
EDIT: Well... virtual REP I guess. Seems like I need to spread some REP around more
Last edited:
So, we aren't looking for a 'Serious Discussion on proper fleet mechanics' but, rather some daydreams about what could be? I can deal with either it's just that the title of the thread says one thing, and we are heading into another. Fine. I see this tact as an artificial way to keep the thread on the first page of the forum. Everytime a Pro-Cult player has a thought, boom, splash it here. That way maybe FD will conflate that with a real interest in this stuff.
Okay, so ... on to the idea of "Fleet Banks".
I've been giving it a lot of thought since yesterday's discussion. When Frontier released Engineers they created a whole new level of game play that players simply can't ignore. Engineer mods are the only way to keep up in the "cold war" of combat as players and NPCs become more challenging.
A "Fleet Bank" could become a similar problem as some players who prefer not to become involved with player groups might feel compelled to do so just to have access to nearly unlimited funds.
So I asked myself, "Is there no way to implement some form of resource sharing that could be enjoyed by both player groups AND the lone wolfs?"
I think there is:
Investment banking. There are lots of players with BILLIONS of credits and nothing to spend them on. Why not allow players to invest in the infrastructure of a particular star system or minor faction? Those investment credits would then result in higher paying missions, increased availability of ships and outfitting and bonuses on bounties claimed in that system or for that player faction.
The benefits would be open to everyone regardless of faction membership so that if a large group invests heavily into "their" system's infrastructure then lone wolfs could jump in and enjoy those benefits as well. It would also allow new players joining a group to work on behalf of their new minor faction allegiance while gaining slightly more rewards then they would receive if they ran missions from a system that hadn't been invested in. These players would still have to earn their own way but they could do so at a slightly accelerated rate while engaging in more compelling game play then simply running biowaste out of Sothis.
Comments? Criticisms?
I've been giving it a lot of thought since yesterday's discussion. When Frontier released Engineers they created a whole new level of game play that players simply can't ignore. Engineer mods are the only way to keep up in the "cold war" of combat as players and NPCs become more challenging.
A "Fleet Bank" could become a similar problem as some players who prefer not to become involved with player groups might feel compelled to do so just to have access to nearly unlimited funds.
So I asked myself, "Is there no way to implement some form of resource sharing that could be enjoyed by both player groups AND the lone wolfs?"
I think there is:
Investment banking. There are lots of players with BILLIONS of credits and nothing to spend them on. Why not allow players to invest in the infrastructure of a particular star system or minor faction? Those investment credits would then result in higher paying missions, increased availability of ships and outfitting and bonuses on bounties claimed in that system or for that player faction.
The benefits would be open to everyone regardless of faction membership so that if a large group invests heavily into "their" system's infrastructure then lone wolfs could jump in and enjoy those benefits as well. It would also allow new players joining a group to work on behalf of their new minor faction allegiance while gaining slightly more rewards then they would receive if they ran missions from a system that hadn't been invested in. These players would still have to earn their own way but they could do so at a slightly accelerated rate while engaging in more compelling game play then simply running biowaste out of Sothis.
Comments? Criticisms?
There are missions like this. Where a Faction asks you to donate to their cause. I guess you got your wish. How does this equate to a 'Fleet Mechanic'? And, I ask that as a good thing.
You're about to become the first forum member I've ever put on "ignore". You're only comments on this thread seem to be aimed at shutting down discussion. One can have a serious discussion while talking about things we dream of having added to the game. I can understand if YOU don't want to discuss the topic but don't try to stop those of us who actually do want to discuss it.
Calling those of us who want to play in social groups "cultists" is derogatory. I for one don't appreciate it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
This isn't the same thing. Donation missions are rarer in core worlds then they are on the frontier and they are far from consistent. I'm talking about a consistent game mechanic to allow players to invest in the system of their choosing in a way that actually delivers measurable results beyond merely increasing a factions REP to effect the BGS.
Last edited:
Ignore me then. If you can't take a decently put counter to your arguments go ahead and hide your head in the sand. I can live with that. I have an interest in keeping the game focused on the individual player, rather than drifting off into a group oriented affair where membership brings advantages small groups and lone players can't enjoy. Do what you want, I can take it.
Have you found the Private Group and Wing features yet? Social grouping right there!
It's not the "decently put arguments" it's the constant put downs and referring to player groups as cults and those who participate in them as cultists. This is derogatory and unnecessary. I can understand you wanting to keep Elite focused on the individual player but Frontier made the decision to put an axe to offline mode and keep us all playing in the same game universe.
Personally I'd like to focus on taking some of the ideas that have been expressed by the OP and finding ways to implement them that won't impact ANYONE's style of game play. If Frontier listens then they listen, if they don't they don't. You might think that any effort by Frontier to make Elite: Dangerous a more friendly multiplayer experience is wasted developer hours but this game needs to meet the needs of the entire player base not just those who fly solo or in wings of four.
Why? The needs of the entire player base have already been met. The game is not perfect for anyone I suppose, but why should guildies get preferential treatment and extra game content over anybody else?