Better player faction integration between outside and inside the game
- Thread starter rootsrat
- Start date
I'm no lone wolf.
Everything I do, I do for the Alliance and the AEDC.
But there are many CMDRs in many groups who will not join EDF because it is Viktor's group. You become one of HIS
I've seen founders burn out. (Where's Walt?) And I've seen new blood rise and lead. I'd follow Schlack to hell and back or uh at least the pub on the corner and back, but there are others also who plan and work and lead. Even out at the AOS when CMDR Steven had a few weeks of despair at PowerPlay - Hribek and others became more important to Alliance leadership.
I do not believe in the cults of personality that many player groups become.
I believe in resilient organizations that can cope with change and that understand their underlying mission. Robust in the face of individual burnout.
The Player Groups are important.
I'm just really wary that we all have to become uh.
Someone posted a set of privileges for CMDRs in another game.
And one of the things you could assign was who could be an "accountant".
And it just sent shivers down my spine.
If the in game tools are restrictive and gatekeeping then all the groups become cookie cutter samey same except "this one is MINE".
How do you provide tools for:
SDC
Fuel Rats
Diamond Frogs
SEPP
And EDF such that they can all do the things they're good at, without forcing or even by suggestion framing their setup into being alike.
Remember that ad hoc group of CMDRs that took down SDC's faction in Wolfberg?
I called them "The Morphine Appreciation Society Ladie's Auxillary" it was sort of friends of Möbius but kinda not really. They started as just a thread on this forum. I started keeping BGS score on day one, but Ian Phillips or you closed my thread because Mobius himself said "There is no War to commentate" but sure enough - there was. And here's my point - NOT Möbius. In fact he was unhappy that CMDRs were doing this "in the name of Möbius".
I get that you want to hold the reigns on your in-game faction.
But I don't think you can.
If "The Morphine Appreciation Society Ladies Auxil" had to set up a full player group and so on would they have got off the ground?
One of the things that has been so great about Elite is that group dynamics have really been Emergent. And so varied. And unexpected.
Remember "The Queen of Sagittarius A"? - A lass took some heavy combat ship with a short jump range out to Sag A and killed anyone in open who didn't arrange paperwork with her. Eventually I believe a combat wing went out and killed her back to the bubble (Pre-colonia). My point is that if she'd been a resilient group rather than a charismatic individual - maybe we'd be filling out paperwork today.
But all those great bits of history disappear because Factions have no voice in-game. And very little visibility.
Player Grouo access to news feeds of ruled stations.
CMDRs allegiance pledged to Allied in-game minor faction.
Voice and Visibilty will give ownership and belonging.
Last edited:
I think it would be very interesting if the player group behind a faction could define the automated qualification criteria. At least to some extent.
The system for this is already partly in place with the engineers.
For my group the Canonn, one may have to bring a certain amount UA, UP and MA to Varati to qualify. A different group may only accept Dangerous or higher combat rating.
In addition to Allied status the double gate(invite criterion and access donation) of the engineers could apply. If these two gates are defined by the player group, they could reflect the ethos rather well.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
I am the grand hetman - highest in hierarchy, but I also have 8 officers and hold regular meetings with them to discuss the current affairs and make decisions. Every single decision is voted by us together. There may have been couple of cases where I made a decision myself, mainly due to the highest level of group's ethos (one example I remember is the directive that forbids shooting Unknown Ships) - other than that we decide together. I am no dictator
We often ask our community for opinion by polls on our forums to see what the group as a whole thinks of some ideas or initatives. And sometimes it's the actual community that decides about some things, when we think it's beneficial for the group as a whole.
You don't have to believe me, but feel free to speak to our members and ask them if they think TWH is a dictatorship and personality cult
RL caught up with him AFAIK. Work and stuff.
Believe me, up until two months ago our group was in the constant state of adapting to new circumstances, mainly to the amount of people signing up (I expected to have 40-50 people at most, we used to have 350 at the peak, now we're at steady 250 and closed recruitment process, as we don't want more at this stage), rapid expansions we've had and alliances we became part of (The Border Coalition). And I can assure you there is no personality cult in my group. We operate on volunteer basis. We have some rules, that in summary can be described as "don't damage the faction's reputation and don't act against our current goals". Other than that our members are free to do whatever they want, play as often as they want, in whatever mode they want. Piracy, murder, trade, exploration - anything goes as long as it's not cheating, CL, harassment, griefing etc.
I've been in a few clans in my time and I can honestly say my group has the most relaxed rules I have ever seen in gaming. And that was 100% deliberate choice, the freedom was and is the very basis of what The Winged Hussars stand for.
I've said many times - I don't want fully fledged "guild" system. All I want is for the Hussars to be able to display The Winged Hussars name under their nick in game to integrate group and faction. And I want it to be as unintrusive to other people's gameplay as I can.
The player groups are a thing and the player factions created by player groups are these groups' extensions in game. All I'd like to see is some integration between the two.
That's certainly an interesting idea worth exploring!
Last edited:
Just wanted to 'publicly' add my support to the concept of being able to 'pledge' to an MF.
...and to thank the OP for raising the standard of debate in this place, which so often descends to puerility & vitriol.
I have no fixed idea of how such a mechanic 'should' be implemented by FD, I just hope that - thanks to high-quality discussions like this one - they DO make an early announcement that they 'are looking at' how to do it best.
You won't get any clues as to WHY this matters to me so much from my sig, the reasons are subtle & quite private.
- But maybe that's the point?
...and to thank the OP for raising the standard of debate in this place, which so often descends to puerility & vitriol.
I have no fixed idea of how such a mechanic 'should' be implemented by FD, I just hope that - thanks to high-quality discussions like this one - they DO make an early announcement that they 'are looking at' how to do it best.
You won't get any clues as to WHY this matters to me so much from my sig, the reasons are subtle & quite private.
- But maybe that's the point?
You have my empathy for your group experience that had it's low sides (probably along with it's high ones). There is no way to guarantee that each and every group will share the same goals, dynamics, structure, coordination and set of guarantees for continuity and stability. The positive side of this is not every group need some or any those features. NPC minor factions, groups that not need coordination, groups that decide not to opt for the approval mechanism in displaying name tags could always go with the auto pledge.
Groups that need coordination and development and players who seek such groups for enhancing their game experience however should not face the harmful consequences of auto pledging because other groups do not need coordination and communication, or reluctant or fail to establish structures ensuring continuity and communication within the group or with the developers. I think your observation is right that an approval mechanism needs more than an individual with a sometimes short lived vision of establishing and leading something and deciding over membership issues. The ability to set up a mechanism ensuring continuity instead of faction reliance on a single individual (we can call it a leader) could be the dividing line between the auto pledging and approval type pledging. Where you mention a leader, there should be a community that has a mean to designate person(s) for the approval function, that is a technical element only and does not necessarily involve the right to decide. (A coordinated PMF is unlike a private group that can be established or cancelled by a single individual.)
In terms of the local news feeds: I don't think it's an easier matter than the approval of pledging. (I am for it, but it must be just as carefully considered.) What function do you envision to designate to those? In game PMF lore? Yes, definitely maybe, especially if the quality assurance can be somehow carried out. Mixed IG / OOC functions? Those should be separated for avoiding breaking immersion. In game coordination? That's out of question. PMF activities might very well be competitive and open boards are not suitable for such activities at all. Providing pointers to external coordination interfaces? That's again an OOC element that could be considered but it could hardly provide the same functions with the same guarantees as an approval. Carefully designed it could complement it well though. Last but not least not every faction want more visibility than it's members wearing their pledges. That should also be honored.
That is a proposal with it's own merit, but it sounds is complementary to the reputation prerequisites to the auto pledging or approved pledging. That said it would be a useful tool that could provide more factions with the opportunity of meaningful auto pledging than the reputation prerequisite alone and would also help to those factions that want to go with the approval process facilitating some of their selection criteria that can be tracked by the clients / servers.
In theory it would not be impossible to design a user interface and a system for factions that expands to new systems and maintain their existing ones so the client can keep track of individual commanders contribution and build up or reduce reputation and pledging opportunities based on that but with the overwhelming complexity of such potential system on the code design and maintenance side and the continuous work required from player factions on the other it is not realistic to expect such system to be established.
Well... no.
That is not the spirit of Elite.
The spirit is: pledge to a faction.
End of story. No control of players over in game assets.
And really, just bwing able to pledge would be enough.
See this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/308769-Would-you-like-to-pledge-to-factions
That is not the spirit of Elite.
The spirit is: pledge to a faction.
End of story. No control of players over in game assets.
And really, just bwing able to pledge would be enough.
See this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/308769-Would-you-like-to-pledge-to-factions
That's the point I have been reiterating, I want to be able to pledge to factions if I so choose, even if it's just a tag in front of my name. This is a matter between me and the faction in question, a matter between a player and the BGS, not a matter between players.
If players want an extra, completely separate, kind of tag to represent which mercenary fleet they belong to, that's fine, but don't confuse it with faction tags. If a player fleet wants better organisational tools for mass messaging and controlling their members, that's fine - but it's got nothing to do with the BGS factions, all such tools should be completely divorced from the BGS factions. Player groups ≠ minor powers, even if they share a name, no matter how much the players like the faction in question.
Imho we have enough shinies. Pledging to a faction would be great. What I'd love:
- manipulate economy and production
- manipulate station sizes (grow them, or they deteriorate)
- expand into uninhabited systems
- expand within systems
Whether there is a name tag to my name? Well... i have a nametag on my ship. Pledging to a faction? Yeah, nice feelgood thingy...
But i'd sacrifice it for actual GAMEPLAY any day of the week.
- manipulate economy and production
- manipulate station sizes (grow them, or they deteriorate)
- expand into uninhabited systems
- expand within systems
Whether there is a name tag to my name? Well... i have a nametag on my ship. Pledging to a faction? Yeah, nice feelgood thingy...
But i'd sacrifice it for actual GAMEPLAY any day of the week.
You are aware that you can do a lot of those things right now, through the BGS? The economy of a system is determined by the resources that particular system has. You will never be able to change a Tech economy in a system with frozen planets into an Agricultural one. By fostering a Faction you can change the State that faction is in, and many states have an effect on production. For the most part, stations are static, but what factions control them can be changed.
Expanding into uninhabited systems has it's own mechanism which is beyond what a Faction can do, and not part of the BGS, but certainly exists. See Colonia. I find game play all over the place in E|D.
No. You cant.
The economy is static and creates an illusion of dynamuc with states.
The economy types are fixed, as are supply and demand, and min and max prices
And no, devs pressing buttons dont count.
The current lack of this feature means there are yet more things which you have to do outside the game, in order to accomplish basic things you should be able to do in the game. Like coordinate a group of players.
It's even worse for people using VR.
Give us flipping player groups with comms already.
It's even worse for people using VR.
Give us flipping player groups with comms already.
Your take dude, your take. I see things differently.
I'll admit to being in the "mixed feelings" crowd here.
Having played quite a few other MMO games, I know all to well what "guild/clan/tribe/faction/alliance/whatever spam" is - those endless recruitment drives, often done to ensure one moves up the inner ranks of their organization. Plain old yuck. It makes me glad not to have these sort of systems or a global chat channel here in Elite, nor a mailbox to get filled with blind invitations for the same reasons.
However, we DO have Factions in the game - both purely NPC factions, as well as factions created by submission by players. These simply Exist. And while a full-blown Player Group can agree to work towards the common goal of a matching player-devised Faction, they are not considered, in game, to be "Of That Faction". So while The Winged Hussars may have an NPC-based in-game representation, and a supporting Player Group behind them, with any number of members, that player group does not really "belong" to that faction, no matter how much they support it.
In some ways, this isn't such a bad thing - If WH #228 becomes disenfranchised with the group, they're free to go without having to do anything in particular. Other Player Group members may not take kindly to #228 opting out, but the NPC's of the faction are generally not going to care one way or another, and #228 is free to go about with whatever.
Likewise, if I happen to find myself in favor of the WH, and want to aid them, I can do so, without having to go though any initiation, waiting on a leader to approve my membership, making enemies I never wanted, or any other impact on my day-to-day.
It's the sort of loose affiliation that makes faction association in game both easy and comfortable for the largest number of people. I don't want dragged into someone else's war/drama because the leader of my group broke up with their significant other, who then broke away and formed their own group and now the two attack each other on sight.. bleh. I left that kind of drama behind in High School. Yuck. And I've seen it happen in more than one game, so I certainly don't miss it here.
But, I am not unsympathetic either - a well organized, planned, thought out player-designed organization has its own rewards as well - comrades-in-arms when trouble comes calling, a reputation among other players, and can contribute greatly to the overall state of the game (look at The Fuel Rats for example). And I don't see pledging to a faction to really be all that different than what Power Play has to offer by joining a particular Power. In fact, the Power Play system could be scaled down, so to say, to allow for this very sort of thing - or revamped in such a way that this is how one engages Power Play entirely - by first pledging to a minor Faction that supports the Power for whom one wishes to Play.
For instance, if I decide I want to support Zach Hudson, I would first find a Faction that supports him - let's say LHS 221 Vision Systems, a Corporate organization based in LHS 221.
I devote some time to raising my Reputation and Influence with LHS 221 Vision Systems by taking on their menial tasks, putting in my time, until my status is updated to indicate my adoption as an LHS 221 Vision Systems member. Now I am given actual real and important missions, reserved for full-fledged faction members, and in the same manner of Rank Progression or Permits (only working), I am given a "Pledge Zach Hudon" mission - perhaps that "mission" is: "Go to the Livery and Equip an 'I ❤ Zach Hudson' Power Play decal to your ship", and when done, my status display is now updated to reflect my pledge to Zach Hudson, and by this I gain access to all the Zach Hudson Power Play options.
To simplify:
As a Nobody, I start working for a faction. In time, I win "Allied" status, and am given a "Join This Faction" mission, that brands me a member of said faction.
As a member of Said Faction, I receive different missions from That Faction - not available to the general public, who have not proven themselves.
After a number of successful Faction missions, I'm given a "Pledge Our Power" mission, and my status as a Member of Said Faction is replaced by a Power Play status instead.
Though no longer listed as a member of Said Faction, but as a member of That Faction's Power, I still receive That Faction Member missions, but I also receive Faction Member missions from other allied Factions, once I've achieved Allied status as well, without having to join that faction, and do not get "Join this Faction" missions, as I am now of A Higher Order - a member of the Power those factions support.
This would give depth and meaning to Factions and Powers that we simply do not have at this point, and really should not be all that difficult to implement, as the basics of these systems already exist.
And this should satisfy both the Clanny/Factiony folks, as well as their opposition, as both end up getting at least half of what they've wanted - those supporting a given faction be it purely NPC, or Player Submitted, can now properly see themselves (in-game) as members of that Faction. Those who fear player abuse of this can relax, as these would remain in the control of NPC's. And Player Group leaders can continue to lead their player groups without putting additional burdens on the servers - they still haven't recovered from 2.3 after all, and I'm not fully convinced they ever got over 2.2.
Today's Word: Compromise : An arrangement no one loves, but everyone can agree to live with.
Having played quite a few other MMO games, I know all to well what "guild/clan/tribe/faction/alliance/whatever spam" is - those endless recruitment drives, often done to ensure one moves up the inner ranks of their organization. Plain old yuck. It makes me glad not to have these sort of systems or a global chat channel here in Elite, nor a mailbox to get filled with blind invitations for the same reasons.
However, we DO have Factions in the game - both purely NPC factions, as well as factions created by submission by players. These simply Exist. And while a full-blown Player Group can agree to work towards the common goal of a matching player-devised Faction, they are not considered, in game, to be "Of That Faction". So while The Winged Hussars may have an NPC-based in-game representation, and a supporting Player Group behind them, with any number of members, that player group does not really "belong" to that faction, no matter how much they support it.
In some ways, this isn't such a bad thing - If WH #228 becomes disenfranchised with the group, they're free to go without having to do anything in particular. Other Player Group members may not take kindly to #228 opting out, but the NPC's of the faction are generally not going to care one way or another, and #228 is free to go about with whatever.
Likewise, if I happen to find myself in favor of the WH, and want to aid them, I can do so, without having to go though any initiation, waiting on a leader to approve my membership, making enemies I never wanted, or any other impact on my day-to-day.
It's the sort of loose affiliation that makes faction association in game both easy and comfortable for the largest number of people. I don't want dragged into someone else's war/drama because the leader of my group broke up with their significant other, who then broke away and formed their own group and now the two attack each other on sight.. bleh. I left that kind of drama behind in High School. Yuck. And I've seen it happen in more than one game, so I certainly don't miss it here.
But, I am not unsympathetic either - a well organized, planned, thought out player-designed organization has its own rewards as well - comrades-in-arms when trouble comes calling, a reputation among other players, and can contribute greatly to the overall state of the game (look at The Fuel Rats for example). And I don't see pledging to a faction to really be all that different than what Power Play has to offer by joining a particular Power. In fact, the Power Play system could be scaled down, so to say, to allow for this very sort of thing - or revamped in such a way that this is how one engages Power Play entirely - by first pledging to a minor Faction that supports the Power for whom one wishes to Play.
For instance, if I decide I want to support Zach Hudson, I would first find a Faction that supports him - let's say LHS 221 Vision Systems, a Corporate organization based in LHS 221.
I devote some time to raising my Reputation and Influence with LHS 221 Vision Systems by taking on their menial tasks, putting in my time, until my status is updated to indicate my adoption as an LHS 221 Vision Systems member. Now I am given actual real and important missions, reserved for full-fledged faction members, and in the same manner of Rank Progression or Permits (only working), I am given a "Pledge Zach Hudon" mission - perhaps that "mission" is: "Go to the Livery and Equip an 'I ❤ Zach Hudson' Power Play decal to your ship", and when done, my status display is now updated to reflect my pledge to Zach Hudson, and by this I gain access to all the Zach Hudson Power Play options.
To simplify:
As a Nobody, I start working for a faction. In time, I win "Allied" status, and am given a "Join This Faction" mission, that brands me a member of said faction.
As a member of Said Faction, I receive different missions from That Faction - not available to the general public, who have not proven themselves.
After a number of successful Faction missions, I'm given a "Pledge Our Power" mission, and my status as a Member of Said Faction is replaced by a Power Play status instead.
Though no longer listed as a member of Said Faction, but as a member of That Faction's Power, I still receive That Faction Member missions, but I also receive Faction Member missions from other allied Factions, once I've achieved Allied status as well, without having to join that faction, and do not get "Join this Faction" missions, as I am now of A Higher Order - a member of the Power those factions support.
This would give depth and meaning to Factions and Powers that we simply do not have at this point, and really should not be all that difficult to implement, as the basics of these systems already exist.
And this should satisfy both the Clanny/Factiony folks, as well as their opposition, as both end up getting at least half of what they've wanted - those supporting a given faction be it purely NPC, or Player Submitted, can now properly see themselves (in-game) as members of that Faction. Those who fear player abuse of this can relax, as these would remain in the control of NPC's. And Player Group leaders can continue to lead their player groups without putting additional burdens on the servers - they still haven't recovered from 2.3 after all, and I'm not fully convinced they ever got over 2.2.
Today's Word: Compromise
: An arrangement no one loves, but everyone can agree to live with.Uh _Flin_ is a foundation AEDC guy. That's not so much his opinion, but kinda the objective truth.
The economies are static. Plus and minus State effects. Plus and minus demand and supply effects. Back to default static if left alone.
Check out Dav Stott at the Amazon Web Server developers conference if you want to know how the economy is run:
[video=youtube_share;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://youtu.be/EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]
Last edited:
But that, too, is out of the game.
What point are you trying to make?
After some skimming of this thread, I agree with Jane and DNA Decay.
While I'd like to think that player group leaders as admins won't go power-mad and abuse what little power the ability to tag CMDRs gives them, I'm pretty sure enough of them will.
As I've said elsewhere, my player group embraced the use of ship IDs so we can display our allegiance to our group when we want to. In Elite's galaxy of grey morality, displaying a faction's standard only makes sense if you can travel incognito at will, so this format makes the most sense to our player group.
My main concern isn't really megalomaniacal group leaders, but limiting CMDRs who don't partake in the player group's internal discussions from outwardly supporting the player group. By our reckoning, outside players have supported our player group slightly more than we have after a year in the game. And anything that would make those guys feel like second-class faction members would be something I'd avoid.
While I'd like to think that player group leaders as admins won't go power-mad and abuse what little power the ability to tag CMDRs gives them, I'm pretty sure enough of them will.
As I've said elsewhere, my player group embraced the use of ship IDs so we can display our allegiance to our group when we want to. In Elite's galaxy of grey morality, displaying a faction's standard only makes sense if you can travel incognito at will, so this format makes the most sense to our player group.
My main concern isn't really megalomaniacal group leaders, but limiting CMDRs who don't partake in the player group's internal discussions from outwardly supporting the player group. By our reckoning, outside players have supported our player group slightly more than we have after a year in the game. And anything that would make those guys feel like second-class faction members would be something I'd avoid.
Last edited:
Mainly that group mechanics and content do exist outside the game.
All the group content is curated, like in the mid-90s in Ultima Online or in the 70s and 80s with pen and paper roleplay.
What Elite offers in the form of a huuuuuuge playing field calls for player curated content, emergent gameplay, clever systems and frameworks instead of one dimensional mechanics without depth or complexity.
So... you can do as if there are changing economies. But they dont really change, they just appear to do so for a limited amount of time. So this isnt in game, only in our head when we prefer to believe it.
We all do as if we "have" factions. But they just exist and are almost like any other faction. We arent pledged. So this, too, exists out of the game.
As do our guilds, squadrons, forums, communication trackers, mission systems, influence trackers, etc.