Better player faction integration between outside and inside the game

[Mohrgan]

I have been thinking about the effects of a 5th Column style attack through a BGS managed system. I can't really think of anything one could do with Tags or without. All of the BGS rules would be exactly the same for someone with Tags and someone without. Why go through the trouble of gaining the rank to avail yourselves of something you already have?

That leaves only the damage to a factions player supporter's reputation if a Commander goes all criminal wearing those tags. Nothing else can be affected by the Tags, so the question is and stays, why? The effort to climb the ranks just to give it a bad name smacks of desperation, and anyone with the determination and diligence to go that far, kind of, has to be accepted. It seems like so small a risk. Sure, if you can change a display at will, ID numbers, people will use them for various tasks, but an effort gated tag would shield the feature from all but the most determined prankster. I'm sure the risk is smaller than having a disgruntled member going rogue and shaming your Faction's tag.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can't have everything when it comes to your second argument. It's a faction created and supported by the group of players. There are hundreds of thousands factions out there to choose from. You make a valid point about the adopted factions. Scrap that idea then

As far as I know, adopted Factions (rather than injected ones) are no longer permitted when Player Groups submit their proposal.

It'd be interesting to know how many were adopted (i.e. how many Player Groups could possibly be unable to control membership if only injected Factions were to be granted controlled membership).

 

[Justor]

I am all for this being added to the game as long as it is done in such a way it could not be exploited and ruin the simulation for others. But I think a player faction that could grow into a power of their own is a very interesting concept and if it is possible and not a technical limitation it should be added to the game at some point.

What I personally would want out of this is player owned small settlements and outpost you could call your own. This could add new game play and mission types to the game to support the player owned facility, defend it from a pirate raid, etc.

Also I appreciate a well taught out "I would like to see this in the game" thread that was not a bunch of ranting without any constructive information or taught. [up]

 

[Vicktore Beskor]

As far as I know, adopted Factions (rather than injected ones) are no longer permitted when Player Groups submit their proposal.

It'd be interesting to know how many were adopted (i.e. how many Player Groups could possibly be unable to control membership if only injected Factions were to be granted controlled membership).

The crimson state group is one and I think the Truckers are and maybe MoM I am not sure though

 

[Marcus Machiavelli]

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.

1. My group is with Jane on this one.
2. We are in support of the proposal.
3. We would like it in game.
4. We would like it limited to one faction at a time.
5. We love our PP pledge showing up in game but would be happy to lose it to our player faction.
6. To limit 5th columing ( a bit) then you lose it once you are not allied.

 

[Pro Cambarus]

it locks out players who want to become involved in a player named faction but want nothing to do with the player group of the same name.

Please explain what kind of involvement can you think of in the case you described and how would an uncontrolled access to a Player Minor Faction tag help that.

 

[Jane Turner]

The crimson state group is one and I think the Truckers are and maybe MoM I am not sure though

The Mercs are like us - we both adopted an existing faction. Frontier in their wisdom then saw fit to insert us as CIU as well. It was a surprise when we stumbled across ourselves.

 

[kilvenny]

I am a solo player by circumstance, but this is an area which I think could do with fleshing out. I would like to join an in game minor faction and be part of its activities.

Once a player has attained a certain status of allegiance (perhaps as much as the top level) with a minor faction then they should be able to set that faction as their primary faction which should show on the HUD. If the player chooses to join a player faction then joining should not be instantaneous but should trigger a request to the designated leader of the minor faction who can accept or refuse the request. If accepted membership can be withdrawn by either side at any point.

 

[Echo Wake]

I believe their should be a way to show who's in what player group in the game. I think Frontier has an issue with this due to the fact that Power Play is already a thing... And if we start pledging to Player Groups, would this effectively remove power play? I mean what would be the point of power play if all anyone wanted to do was support their P.G.

I am a member of a player group and we have also worked hard to gain control of our system. I truly believe their should be a way to communicate that I am part of this or that P.G. But I think Frontier is going to have their hands full on dealing with this issues.

On another note, if they do allow some form of formal Faction Identification it would be nice if Healing Beam lasers got rolled into this. So you can multicrew and still use healing beams to heal your friends. This is because Healing Beams have become useless in multicrew... I mean ship launched fighters don't last long enough generally to have healing beams used on them once they get into trouble.

-edit-
And everyone aligned to the same player faction should be colored blue or something like being in a persistent wing.

 

[Pro Cambarus]

As many would support trusting the reputation system with issuing player MF tags let me try to put this matter in another perspective. Would the BGS (mission system, market dynamics, etc.) guide and coordinate the development of player minor factions any way, let alone setting appropriate goals and direct players towards them, the reputation based self applied (automatic) tagging, maybe even a decay mechanism would be appropriate. (Don't get it wrong: I don't think it would benefit the game experience.)

As long as the mission system issues missions that actually undermines the issuing faction in the same system, let alone the next system of the MF, provide no means of working towards goals and rewarding coordinated activities player communities behind the player minor factions have to take on that role. There is nothing wrong with that, we can see healthy player minor faction communities carrying out these functions successfully. But as long as communities are coordinating, communicating and keeping track of contributions, they should have the opportunity to confirm tagged membership or not. The client and the servers have no means to know what is contribution to the PMF and what is not. The client with providing the opportunity to pledge and by facilitating the establishment of the contact and communication with the community behind the PMF by the approval mechanism would be a very helpful tool for the gameplay.

An automatic system that would facilitate a reputation grind most probably against the development of the faction while providing the illusion of useful contribution to the applicant player would result in gradual detachment on the applicant side because finding no further content and interaction without being really connected to the group with potentially rich lore, reward system, community life. It would also provide frustration and hindrance for those who contributed a lot already to establish all these content and a minor faction controlling and improving numerous systems according their ideals.

For these reasons I think a system of player approved pledging would be very useful but an automatic pledging in terms of established PMFs would be worse than no pledging at all.

 

[Echo Wake]

I agree with no automatic tagging.

However what happens when a leader can longer function as a leader. How does one transfer power to another player because a leader decides to, go away, play a new game, our has real life issues that prevent them from playing. Can a leader dissolve a minor faction should they choose to disband? Does disbanding a minor faction remove it from the game? Can a groups members vote to replace a leader they deem unworthy to lead the group?

Placing everything on person will most like burn them out as I am sure most groups go through a version of a background check on players to make sure they are not spies. And making everything go through one person will likely mean that person will be managing the group more than playing E.D.

This is why the group I am in is run by a council so they can discuss things as a group and power does not reside on one person. This also allows us to bring in more people without everyone having to pass through a single point.

As the game has various faction types (i.e. corporation), perhaps a leader can set things up in group based on the minor factions type.

Just an idea.

 

[V'larr]

You've got my vote. Player groups as whole feature needs to be better embraced and integrated into the game.

There needs to be an automatic system for handling player-group-faction requests, so that forming one takes less than a day rather than 3-6+ months on up.

There also should be a means of quickly updating the ingame player-faction text that you can find at many 'adopted' systems in the game. (This would also allow for quickly cleaning up any dormant vacancies, too.)

And there should be a member of the Fdev team who is dedicated solely to dealing with player groups.

 

[Adept Geraden]

I'm glad somebody is pushing this particular wheelbarrow. I've been pushing it for so long I've given up all hope. Actually, I've pretty much given up all hope of anything in this "game".

Needless to say, but SEPP fully supports this. At least we got decals from the dangerous games. More than most other player groups have ever gotten.

 

[AL TARF]

I'm glad somebody is pushing this particular wheelbarrow. I've been pushing it for so long I've given up all hope. Actually, I've pretty much given up all hope of anything in this "game".

Needless to say, but SEPP fully supports this. At least we got decals from the dangerous games. More than most other player groups have ever gotten.

This problem with player minor factions was there ever since they were implemented. INARA partially solved that probem - we have a particular place, where you can see who's on which side. But the in-game designation is something that was suggesting itself for a long time. EG Pilots just like SEPP have their decals after DG, but we are fully supporting this initiative. However, just like my colleague from SEPP here, many of our pilots have given up hope for this minor factions management feature. It would be cool if this discussion will make a difference.

 

[Sentar]

Joining freely any NPC faction, or applying to player created factions and then joining, if factions leader accept it, is the thing, that must be implemented in game long before its release, i think. As in any other MMO, there must be the way for players, to create their own guilds/clans/alliances/factions/communities etc. in game, not just on forums. There must be the way to identify members of community in game.
I wonder, why FD didn't implement it long ago.
As proud member of EG Pilots community, i'm totally supporting topic starter's opinion. This opinion must be heard by Frontier, not just Elite: Dangerous players community.

 

[rootsrat]

The plan for now is to organise some sort of group leaders' meeting and work out a proposal and feedback together. I will then ensure this is passed on to FDEV via official channels and hopefully we'll get some sort of reply. Even if it's going to be "No can do" - at least we'll know where we are.

Just one thing - it will definitely be a proposal to include faction tag only. I definitely don't want to affect/limit/force other people's gameplay or start the whole "asset ownership, clan territory, fleet mechanics" and similar stuff.

 

[the100thmonkey]

The crimson state group is one and I think the Truckers are and maybe MoM I am not sure though

The Mercs are injected. They curate the Dukes of Mikunn. Communism Interstellar entered the Dangerous Games based on their adoption of the Workers of Manite Labour Union. The AEDC adopted Wolf 406 Transport & Co. Many of the older player groups did this as they started working the BGS before PMFs were a thing.

 

[DNA-Decay]

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

Schlack is about as "AEDC Official" as you can get.

Here's Jame's input for the record.

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.

I've highlited the thing I feel strongly about.
The thing I have greatest disagreement with Viktor B about.
The thing I keep banging on about.

Disclosure: I am a mid ranked veteran in a well established, large and prestigious Player Group. Not one of the clever people upstairs. Mid-Ranked.
I also take a strong interest in ALL the player groups. Their history. Their lore. Their members. Their activity.

I have two examples of the problems of gating in-game membership by group leaders.

1) 160th SOAR. This is a Player Group started by a CMDR before he understood his own preferences. He created it on INARA got a few buddies in and ticked the box marked "Alliance" for faction. Because "not Federation and not Empire". But then he joined Achenar Immortals and ranked up there. In fact he became senior. An officer. BGS Strategist and PvP team leader. For the Achenar Immortals.

Now when Frontier needed an Alliance player group to host the two CGs that built the Alliance research bases out in the California Nebula. They didn't chose one of the big names in the Alliance (AOS or AEDC and so on) they decided to chose a relatively unknown group. And 160th SOAR are on the top of any Alpha Numeric sort list. 160th SOAR saw a spike in recruits with each CG. And as far as the recruits knew they were joining an "Alliance" faction.

So here we see a demonstration of some of the problems for Frontier in granting more tools for in game PMF membership management. Who should be the gatekeeper for 160th SOAR membership? That CMDR is only occasionally interested in his little side project. Maybe he'll shelve it.

Okay it could work for the sixty odd uh "groups of significance" but trying to follow who is really what for the three hundred odd Player Minor Factions. Impossible. Throw into the mix groups like the Diamond Frogs who do great things with manipulating Public Relations and the smoke and mirrors of appearances. Using a truth to hide a lie.

Suddenly I find myself seeing similarities in the setups of Winged Hussars and EDF even though I only respect one. Their hierarchy and structures are similar.

2) Secondly (and I repeat this a bit) the tools you provide in-game sort of dictate the types groups that exist and what those groups can do - what their purpose is.
Compare:
Fuel Rats
SDC
CANNON
Winged Hussars
SEPP
Diamond Frogs
Adle's Armada
Sirius Inc
Sirius Gov
Communism Interstellar
AEDC
AOS
Dark Armada
EGP
Bacon Cats

Some of those have a language gate. There's no point joining EGP unless you говорит по-русски . Some of those have no need of tags. Some have no need of secure comms channels. Some are completely opaque to Frontier. Some are completely open.

Whatever systems Frontier bring in-game, we (the players) will find ways to abuse or min / max them.

I dont want to say "Frontier should not give us faction tools".
But I don't think the EDF / Winged Hussars shopping list of centralized hierarchical tools are the right ones.


So what DO I advocate?

Voice and visibility.
Visibility - you should be able to pledge to a Minor Faction that you are Allied with. It should not have to be a Player Minor Faction. You should not have to "apply to the group" just get allied and pledge.

Voice - every PMF has designated respondents who are known to Frontier. They should have direct write access to the news feeds at systems their faction rules.

Both these things are open to abuse.
But both these things will give the serious groups the right sence of ownership and belonging.


As much as I respect the voices of group leaders calling for "ownership" here's a voice from the rank and file calling for "belonging".

 

[the100thmonkey]

^ Great post!

I'd add that there is a presupposition that PMFs have a certain hierarchical structure in that the suggestion has been made to invest a particular member with the responsibility to filter applications. Not all groups work that way, and not all members of a group would want a single point of failure in processing pledges. Automatic pledging is clearly not without issues, but once a system is in place, it can only reflect the values of the people who implement the code, not individual players with all the propensity for caprice and drama that provides.

I'd far prefer a carefully and thoughtfully designed automated pledge mechanism than one potentially subject to the varying demands that life places on even the most dedicated player.

 

[rootsrat]

Thanks for the extensive feedback, DNA. +rep! You've presented the point of view I did not think of.

So on one hand I can definitely see the benefits of the automated system, but on the other hand I realise that many player factions are extensions of the actual player groups and people develop these factions according to specific goals and ethos they set within the group, so it's completely understandable they'd want to affiliate with what is in their eyes THEIR faction. No in the sense of ownership, but in the sense of commitment, dedication and thousands of hours of work they've put into making the faction into what it's became.

The automated system sounds good for an ordinary, random lone wolf Commander, but I really dislike the idea of random players flying under TWH flag just because they've spent couple of hours in a RES site in one of our systems (and perhaps even damaged our BGS in that way, because we didn't want for our influence to raise in that particular system etc.).

Both solution have pros and cons, and while the automated one would make this system accessible to any player, I have written my OP from the perspective of a group leader - which I have specifically said in there too. The driver for this post was not allowing for just any player to wear a faction's tag, but for PLAYER GROUPS being able to integrate their group with the PLAYER FACTION they have created, without actually affecting anybody's gameplay.

I admit I have lost sight of my original idea, when discussing the matter. And while I don't mind the automated system accessible to just about anybody, this wasn't really the point of my proposal.

If we can come up with an automated solution that works from player group and player faction integration point of view, I'm more than happy to fully support it!