Better player faction integration between outside and inside the game

[Robert Maynard]

In a word

Eve-Fear

That's not a real word....

.... and the proposed feature is essentially cosmetic and does not confer any in-game advantage to the player - so why should it be feared?

Anyone unwilling to be identified with a Faction that they were Allied with would simply not fly the Faction colours.

 

[Marshall...]

I understand and love it!

 

[Schlack]

As you can guess we would be right up for it in - though we'd not be in favour of anything that required a judgement call by any individual. We'd much prefer a situation where you need to be allied, and perhaps allied for a considerable time to a faction to pledge to it and there to be a strict limit on the number of factions you can pledge to.


Yes of course this is open to abuse, and if someone took the time to become pledged to a faction then went and caused trouble in their name, that would be part of the game, akin to 5th columning in PP. It would have to be managed in PR.

Agree with OP, Jane's mechanism here probably better for existing mechanics and FD's Ethos of the game.

 

[Goose4291]

That's not a real word....

.... and the proposed feature is essentially cosmetic and does not confer any in-game advantage to the player - so why should it be feared?

Anyone unwilling to be identified with a Faction that they were Allied with would simply not fly the Faction colours.

"Because thats how it starts, ye see.. first they get wings... then they get a decal... next thing fdev will allow them to get control of a coriolis unless we draw a line in the sand here and oppose all group mechanics being introduced"

Or words to that effect.

 

[Certacito]

OP, I could not agree more, your suggestion has my support and that of the faction I maintain.

+1 Rep for a well made post, sound reasoning and for attempting to make a QoL upgrade for ALL player factions.

 

[DaveB]

"Because thats how it starts, ye see.. first they get wings... then they get a decal... next thing fdev will allow them to get control of a coriolis unless we draw a line in the sand here and oppose all group mechanics being introduced"

Or words to that effect.

You make a valid point. I'm sure there are some folks - and we both know who they are - that will indeed see something like the OPs modest proposal as "progress" towards all those things that they want. Likewise others who will draw the same conclusion and object to it as movement towards an end-state they don't want. Much of either could be defused by FD - all they would need to do is say clearly "This is not an increment. This is all you are getting." Quite frankly, if I were in rootsrats position and was able to persuade FD to implement such a proposal I'd be practically begging them to say just that.

 

[FrogsFriend]

.....
And like I said - I do not want to OWN my faction. I want to be able to display it's name under my name on the HUD to show my allegiance with it. Where do you see a problem with that?

I'm 100% behind the idea of an in-game mechanism for players to be able to pledge-to/be-employed-by Factions (that's any Faction, whether existing or player named). No problem there. In fact I'd very much like that to be developed with appropriate HUD display, missions, messages, transactions, etc. somewhat akin to Powerplay but on a more local scale. If necessary provide suitable gating around time/effort with restrictions on chopping and changing allegiance too often.
But, having third-party individuals (however nice those people may be ) decide who can or cannot sign up with particular Factions within the game world is the point I'm opposed to. Make a system that works equally well for everyone playing the game, with rules set by FD.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade it's just that I can see this as a way to develop the game for everyone rather than just adding third-party controlled clan-tags for a few.

 

[rootsrat]

Yes, I realise that. I honestly don't want Elite to become a different game to what's it now - with player owned assets, systems and so on. While I don't dislike the idea, there are other games that do it already, so I'm of an opinion we don't need another one. Elite is quite a unique game and I'd love for it to stay that way.

All I want is for my faction members to be able to show allegiance in game, just like NPC and Power Play members do

 

[CMDR Ahab]

Just like to chime in here that I'd be in full support of this type of Faction membership rather than the silliness that is going on in that -other- thread. *shudders*

 

[Xender]

Frontier approach looks like this: "Anyone should be able join factions as he wants, there shouldn't be any person in charge of recruiting peoples. Elite is sandbox and everything should be available for everyone at the same conditions". I don't like this approach from many reason:
- There are so many factions in game... Are you sure that you MUST join that particular faction? If yes, just try to consider leader to recruit you, otherwise pick another factions from tens of others.
- It is realistic, that something created and developed by someone belong to someone and he may doesn't like to share his accomplishments with everyone.
- Elite have so so so big galaxy, so so many systems and may have some many factions that locking some faction by leader/owner wont affects other players, from the other hand making everything accessible for everyone simplify the game and lower the level of involvement.

Just ask yourself what is more involving: supporting country as a minor anonymous gear in big machine or creating your own club/guild/company, improving it, developing, recruiting peoples? Let players create players places where they truly belongs and they "own" it

 

[goemon]

And like I said - I do not want to OWN my faction. I want to be able to display it's name under my name on the HUD to show my allegiance with it. Where do you see a problem with that?

i don't think i have read any post here saying "showing your allegiance on the hud" is a problem, i'd even say everyone in this thread likes the idea and wants it to happen.

the problem is when it comes to gating access to "showing your allegiance on the hud".

your suggestion (in the op) is gating it by somebody (or an in-group) allowing or denying a player to show his allegiance.

some suggestions in this thread claim it is better to gate it by ingame mechanics (reputation, time, number of factions you can "join" etc.).

i think this is what it boils down to.

the core design of minor factions not involving any individual in gating, decision making, ordering etc. is pretty inclusive - through all modes and playstyles. it is also very resilient against out-of-the-game drama or anything RL. i believe that "pledging to a minor faction" should happen, but i also think that the mechanic should use the inclusive, not depending on single individuals design of minor factions.

 

[Mohrgan]

I have a long history of supporting just such an idea. Honing the suggestion so it fits, works, and improves the in game experience is exactly the thing that should happen in order to see it realized.

I believe we can rely on the BGS to control membership in a Faction, player type or otherwise. One would have to reach a new 'Invited' stage of the Influence scale to pledge. This invited status should be precarious. With enough negative activity one would loose the affiliation and the tags. It would be balanced around making a 5th Column action enough for the BGS to drop you, but not so tight that common BGS manipulations don't loose you your tags. 5h Column activity can still happen, but it wouldn't be a freebie. But, we'd have to accept repeated attempts, as a determined foe could start the 'Invite' process over with enough positive effort.


This kind of system would allow players to be more portable than a classic Roster mechanism. If an association of players has a changing of the guard, people wouldn't loose the equity they have earned in a Faction simply because the guy who gets to wear the fanciest hat changes. It would also allow those that wandered away to find another place to call home. Even a Rep Decay system, like we have elsewhere, could keep the factions real supporters tagged, and the slackers demoted.

Keeping the conversation focused and civilized is paramount. Develop a solid proposal, that has wide support, and history has shown that FD are ready and willing to bring us the features we want.

 

[RamirezKurita]

You couldn't be more wrong. In fact it's 100% opposite.

The special involvement only truly begins when the entity you have created appears in the system of your choice. Only then the true support begins. The main people working for a faction's success are not random players that happen to pass the given system. It's the people who have banded together that make the faction's success or failure. It requires a lot of effort, work and dedication to direct your expansions where you want them, to maintain diplomatic relations with your neighbours, to organise CG's and other events for your faction and so on.

And how do you know that the guy who gives you missions isn't actually working for me?

And like I said - I do not want to OWN my faction. I want to be able to display it's name under my name on the HUD to show my allegiance with it. Where do you see a problem with that?

All of those things are regular player involvement with a faction. Players can band together to support any minor faction and do all those things, it doesn't give them any special power over that faction, it just means that they are working hard to support that faction, regardless of whether it is a player created faction or a standard minor faction. Once the application for a player minor faction has been accepted, the faction is just a standard minor faction with a unique name that you and your group of friends choose to support.

Displaying a faction's name on your HUD to show allegiance is not a problem, but if you are trying to show a minor faction's name then it should be open to all who have sufficient reputation with said minor faction, not some special club that you control member ship of. You should never receive an application for someone to use your favourite minor faction's name, that is between the player and the minor faction themselves. Even someone who plays in solo who has literally zero contact with other players, both inside and outside the game, should be able to waltz into the minor faction's systems, rank up and eventually get their prestigious faction name badge. The moment the Winged Hussars become a minor faction, the name become public property in ED no different to the Federal Congress or the Sirius Free and not something limited to your discord channel.

 

[rootsrat]

I'm 100% behind the idea of an in-game mechanism for players to be able to pledge-to/be-employed-by Factions (that's any Faction, whether existing or player named). No problem there. In fact I'd very much like that to be developed with appropriate HUD display, missions, messages, transactions, etc. somewhat akin to Powerplay but on a more local scale. If necessary provide suitable gating around time/effort with restrictions on chopping and changing allegiance too often.
But, having third-party individuals (however nice those people may be ) decide who can or cannot sign up with particular Factions within the game world is the point I'm opposed to. Make a system that works equally well for everyone playing the game, with rules set by FD.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade it's just that I can see this as a way to develop the game for everyone rather than just adding third-party controlled clan-tags for a few.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your post.

There was a suggestion to be able to display a faction name when you are Allied with it and while I generally don't oppose it, it opens some possibilities for foul gameplay - and if that'd be the case, I'd also like to have some counter measures to apply to the people that would be harming my faction's name by for example pledging to it and then doing bad stuff in the Bubble, effectively damaging our reputation.

Pro's and cons.

In my opinion, direct control would work better. Most of the in game player factions already have a closed group of the same name outside of the game that has some sort of recruitment process, so it's just expanding that into the game, without having literally ANY impact on anyone else's game.

That's I've suggested the idea in the way I did - but some sort of automated system would also work for me, as long as it's implemented in a reasonable way for everyone.

 

[Fenyl]

You make a valid point. I'm sure there are some folks - and we both know who they are - that will indeed see something like the OPs modest proposal as "progress" towards all those things that they want. Likewise others who will draw the same conclusion and object to it as movement towards an end-state they don't want. Much of either could be defused by FD - all they would need to do is say clearly "This is not an increment. This is all you are getting." Quite frankly, if I were in rootsrats position and was able to persuade FD to implement such a proposal I'd be practically begging them to say just that.

Rootsrats propositon have one major advantage - it doesn't change anything for those who are not interested in being a member of a faction. It just gives player groups something so basic, that I am surprised that FD was brave enough to call this game MMO without it.

One of the biggest problems that I have with FD is their lackluster way of communication. We don't know anything about future of this game and "SoonTM" was funny at first, but now is just infuriating.

 

[Goose4291]

Just like to chime in here that I'd be in full support of this type of Faction membership rather than the silliness that is going on in that -other- thread. *shudders*

I agree but a lot of the goings on in that other thread are due to vague personal definitions of guild/group mechanics.

Off topic slightly, dont you already have a decal from the rise to power?

 

[Xender]

There is one issue with creating faction recruitment process leader. For example it Mathias Shallowgrave aka rootsrat will responsible for allowing players to join The Winged Hussars, what will happen if he quits from Elite? It is not typical mmo guild scenario where guild is an entity, where owner(leader) can change. I think it will require special Rising To leader functionality because factions wont disappear if leader quits. Or maybe it should be handled differently.


Players should be able to create CMDR organisations. This will be something like Player Group but it will be visible across all game modes and it will have it's place in game lore. Leader of each organisation my pledge org alliegiance allegiance to particular faction. Of course this require good standing with faction and then it will require further factions support in future. In that way anyone can create organisation that support background simulation faction however players will be distinguished by their organisations.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Even someone who plays in solo who has literally zero contact with other players, both inside and outside the game, should be able to waltz into the minor faction's systems, rank up and eventually get their prestigious faction name badge. The moment the Winged Hussars become a minor faction, the name become public property in ED no different to the Federal Congress or the Sirius Free and not something limited to your discord channel.

If the Faction's image is sufficiently prestigious (presumably through the actions and organisation of the leadership and members of the Player Group that requested its injection) to attract players, is it so unreasonable to permit that player group to control who is permitted to fly the colours of that Faction in-game? Being a prestigious Faction, the Player Group behind it would have an image to protect, after all....

As mentioned previously, there are a very large number of Factions - and players bothered by having to ask another to become a member could simply request that their own, new, Faction was injected.

 

[rootsrat]

i don't think i have read any post here saying "showing your allegiance on the hud" is a problem, i'd even say everyone in this thread likes the idea and wants it to happen.

the problem is when it comes to gating access to "showing your allegiance on the hud".

your suggestion (in the op) is gating it by somebody (or an in-group) allowing or denying a player to show his allegiance.

some suggestions in this thread claim it is better to gate it by ingame mechanics (reputation, time, number of factions you can "join" etc.).

i think this is what it boils down to.

the core design of minor factions not involving any individual in gating, decision making, ordering etc. is pretty inclusive - through all modes and playstyles. it is also very resilient against out-of-the-game drama or anything RL. i believe that "pledging to a minor faction" should happen, but i also think that the mechanic should use the inclusive, not depending on single individuals design of minor factions.

Fair enough - and I've said in the thread that I don't mind that kind of a system either. But there should also be some sort of a system to prevent 5th column.

What if someone works to pledge to my faction and then deliberately starts ganking new players in starter systems (which is actually forbidden by my group's rule set). Or goes to our neighbours territory that we are allied with and starts deliberately messing with their BGS? Or does other similar thing JUST to damage my group's reputation?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree but a lot of the goings on in that other thread are due to vague personal definitions of guild/group mechanics.

.... and a complete lack of definition of the subject in the OP.