Better player faction integration between outside and inside the game

[Robert Maynard]

All those are details. Clan system can be implemented in many optional variations simultaneously. But in any way some kind of a clan tag (and some in-game global clan communication) should be implemented.

That's beyond the scope of this thread - there is another thread going about that talks of nebulous "Proper Fleet Mechanics" though (here).

 

[Goose4291]

Not really off topic as still do an awful lot of work for them as a minor faction, but yeah got the decal a few weeks after the CG finished. How come?

No reason, was just curious

Not necessarily, a player who isn't really involved in the community wouldn't even know a faction was a player created one, it would just be another minor faction just like the rest. They could want to wear said faction's colours because they like mining in one of the rings in their systems, or they could find one of the station names to be funny, they might regularly use an engineer in/near faction space or it could be simply that they quite like the outfitting in one of the systems.

The whole point would be to ensure that a player who doesn't read the forums, doesn't look at Inara, doesn't reddit and who plays in solo is not locked out of content just because a player/players are going on an ego trip.

I like it. Very much in line with my idea of how player factions could evolve and people could align with them.

However, I don't like the idea of a single person or clique controlling membership of the faction. I see where you are coming from, but i'd rather keep the factions open to join, and that any sort of recognition is derived from in-game efforts.

And yes, i understand this would therefore apply to my own group as well, i wouldn't get to control who flies under my faction's colours. The price we would pay for an egalitarian system where we keep the sense of being small cogs in big wheels.

Which is all well and good until someone 'joins' a minor faction with the sole intent of crippling it from within (for example, deliberately failing missions) to either troll the genuine members or engage in BGS warfare

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

That's beyond the scope of this thread - there is another thread going about that talks of nebulous "Proper Fleet Mechanics" though (here).

Im talking mostly about posibility of genuine clan tags here, which cannot be issued without clan leaders' notice.
So does the op.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Im talking mostly about posibility of genuine clan tags here, which cannot be issued without clan leaders' notice.
So does the op.

I meant the comms part. The Winged Hussars would seem to have that bit well covered (and it's not mentioned in the OP).

 

[Pro Cambarus]

Having been there myself in another game, I know that the personal link to a faction you've created is very strong, but to be truly successful, you need to let that go and let the members represent the faction more than you do.

I don't question that your experience of group dynamics in another game is useful. I do question that experience gained in most other games in terms of faction development through BGS is just as relevant.

 

[CMDR RAY-ZOR'SHARP]

I like it. Very much in line with my idea of how player factions could evolve and people could align with them.

However, I don't like the idea of a single person or clique controlling membership of the faction. I see where you are coming from, but i'd rather keep the factions open to join, and that any sort of recognition is derived from in-game efforts.

And yes, i understand this would therefore apply to my own group as well, i wouldn't get to control who flies under my faction's colours. The price we would pay for an egalitarian system where we keep the sense of being small cogs in big wheels.

I certainly don't care for the idea of a single person controlling a faction membership, if they go AWOL the group management is stymied, having a clique is surly the safest way to manage a group, I don't care for the open to join a player group at all, as this is surly a written invitation for the same 5C activities that plagued PP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I certainly don't care for the idea of a single person controlling a faction membership, if they go AWOL the group management is stymied, having a clique is surly the safest way to manage a group, I don't care for the open to join a player group at all, as this is surly a written invitation for the same 5C activities that plagued PP.

Indeed .... and there are many, many NPC Factions that could be pledged to by players without requiring a player to approve it - what is being requested is only for Factions injected at the request of a Player Group.

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

Snip

I support anything to better integrate CMDR's, Game, Factions, Thargoids, Third party tools, Donald Trump..
(well strike that one )

Bad humour aside it is a good idea, it is what this game needs, more integration between the existing elements, I think thats obvious from the many, many threads on the subject.

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Fenyl]

The thread isn't about tags for a player group, it's about tags for an in-game faction. The two are quite different, as one is an entirely human-run operation about coordinating the activities of players, while the other is an in-game organisation just like any other minor power.

Maybe separate tags for player groups and minor power affiliations could work, but either they would need to be completely separate in the HUD (we only have so much screen real estate though) or they would have to be completely unique to avoid confusion. The latter would work fine, except that I suspect many of the player groups would rage over having to rename themselves because they share a name with a minor power.

As much as I understand your logic in separating player group from in-game faction, I can't agree.
Applying for an in-game faction is the only way for group of players to have representation of their community in game. To say that with implemenation into the game we loose that connection is simply not true. If you look at the instructions on how to establish minor faction you will see, that first you are required to submit player group. Those are connected from the start.

 

[RamirezKurita]

Which is all well and good until someone 'joins' a minor faction with the sole intent of crippling it from within (for example, deliberately failing missions) to either troll the genuine members or engage in BGS warfare

Anyone deliberately failing missions or killing system security would likely lose reputation pretty quickly, which would cause them to lose access to the faction tag if it were locked behind a reputation gate. It would, however open up emergent gameplay about players functioning as double agents, nominally "helping" the faction through trade and mission completion while also hindering it's long tem goals similar to what occurs in PP.

 

[Baton]

iSupport +1

 

[Vicktore Beskor]

Thank you rootsrat for this thread. I know I have been on the Extreme right of this topic. But my fear is that if FDev add some kind of PP mechanics to pledge to a PMF it would lead to unforeseen consequences.
And I would like to make one point what if a player has very limited time to play each week how would he keep up with the demands to stay pledged.
My gameing time is very limited each week and that is one of the reasons I don't participate in PP

 

[Mohrgan]

Thank you rootsrat for this thread. I know I have been on the Extreme right of this topic. But my fear is that if FDev add some kind of PP mechanics to pledge to a PMF it would lead to unforeseen consequences.
And I would like to make one point what if a player has very limited time to play each week how would he keep up with the demands to stay pledged.

He may not be able to. Just like not having enough time to earn the credits necessary to buy a 'Vette, or climb the tiers with the Engineers. Time is the single commodity a game has to work with. Each player gets back what he can afford to put in.

A system with Reputation gating membership and a rep decay mechanism would keep rosters clean and tidy. Those that are putting in the effort are rewarded automatically, where the unproductive see their status decline. Always with the knowledge that it is directly in the hands of the player to climb back up the ranks with the appropriate effort. This would only apply to the in-game tagging as Agents of and not just supporters of any given Faction.

None of this would have any bearing on Private Groups and their membership, only the ability/right/option to display the in-game faction affiliation when scanned. All of that PG membership stuff would be left out side of the game, as it is now. Faction Membership would come at the price of dedicated, and continued service to that faction.

 

[Vicktore Beskor]

He may not be able to. Just like not having enough time to earn the credits necessary to buy a 'Vette, or climb the tiers with the Engineers. Time is the single commodity a game has to work with. Each player gets back what he can afford to put in.

A system with Reputation gating membership and a rep decay mechanism would keep rosters clean and tidy. Those that are putting in the effort are rewarded automatically, where the unproductive see their status decline. Always with the knowledge that it is directly in the hands of the player to climb back up the ranks with the appropriate effort. This would only apply to the in-game tagging as Agents of and not just supporters of any given Faction.

None of this would have any bearing on Private Groups and their membership, only the ability/right/option to display the in-game faction affiliation when scanned. All of that PG membership stuff would be left out side of the game, as it is now. Faction Membership would come at the price of dedicated, and continued service to that faction.

With respect to your answer you can save for a Corvette credits do not decay. And by putting in a decay gate is unfair to those who have Limited game time making it a content gate opening up another big can of worms.

 

[Mohrgan]

With respect to your answer you can save for a Corvette credits do not decay. And by putting in a decay gate is unfair to those who have Limited game time making it a content gate opening up another big can of worms.

All this reflects is effort put in towards a Faction, and being able to show Tags. Not membership to your fiefdom. I tend towards the notion that once a PMF is added to the game, it becomes a Faction like any other. In game, I can't see your permission as a reasonable block to someone supporting a/your Faction. So your permission should not block a reward for the effort put in.

What if some less benevolent leader of a group has issues with one of the other founders? Putting roster control in one persons hands breeds favoritism, and allows for some players to lose the equity their efforts have accrued. By having tags actually earned by in game effort, and managed by the impartial BGS, removes all of the politics from reaping the rewards commensurate to your efforts. You can still control who has access to your Voice Chat, and website, but in game stays in game.

 

[rootsrat]

Thanks for all your support, comments, rep and thoughts. I think the fact that we've had nearly 100 posts of a civilised and meaningful discussion shows that the subject is treated seriously.

I will attempt to gather as many group leaders as I can and maybe organise some sort of a meeting to work out a reasonable proposal of how to integrate player groups with the equivalent player factions - a one that won't have an effect on solitary Commanders, lone wolfs and independent pilots - and then present it to Frontier via official channels (Community Management). This will hopefully trigger some response from them.

Keep the ideas coming!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

For those who are concerned about 5C activities if group membership was open, how is that really any different from what we have now? Anyone can work for or against a faction as they please, they don't need to align with a faction. Factions and the BGS are not like powerplay. In powerplay you can join and work against your power by prepping bad systems for example. With the BGS you would sign up for a faction and then work against it? Your rep would drop pretty quickly doing that, there could even be a mechanic whereby you need to maintain a friendly relationship or better to keep membership.

I don't see how 5C could even be applicable here. Ok, if there were group comms you could spy on what was being discussed, but there again, how is that different from applying to join a group and doing the same anyway? Nobody needs to know what you are doing in game anyway. Your group could ask you what you are doing, and you report you are doing good work, while in reality, doing stuff to mess them up. They would never know unless you slipped up.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I post this thread to see what the support for my idea would be from the community.

Before I start, I'd like to explain the context of my post and show people where I'm coming from. If you're a group leader, you can skip this part, as you will most likely understand. The intro is aimed and people who perhaps never belonged to a group/clan/guild or don't understand that "guilds" (I call them FACTIONS) are actually part of the game now.


INTRODUCTION

There are many player groups in Elite now, many of which also have their player factions in game. I'm sure that most of the members of such groups feel attached to their in-game factions and affiliate with them, supporting their influence, expanding to other systems, winning wars etc.

This is the closest equivalent to "guilds" or "clans" we have in Elite now. Whether you support the idea or not - the fact of the matter is, "guilds" exist in this game. Now, before you start protesting, let me put some context of what I mean by that, so that you understand where I'm coming from.

It's the nature of such games and their communities - people will naturally start cooperating to achieve common goals and then form a certain bond. When Frontier introduced player factions in Elite, it was only natural for the people that created these factions to form a connection and emotional attachment to their creations. I will use my own example.

My group has around 250 people in it. Shortly after our group was formed, our faction was added to the game. We have created it, gave it history, lore and description. We have been supporting it for over 2 years now, controlling the expansions, wining wars and playing together to achieve the goals we set for our group. We've seen our in game faction expanding to surrounding systems and at this point we control 24 systems or so. We have separate forums with over 65k posts, we have our own TS server, Discord and so on.

We consider ourselves a FACTION in Elite world (or a clan, a guild, whatever you want to call it - I prefer faction, as it's in line with Elite lore and nomenclature) and we don't separate our out-of-game entity and our in-game entity. The Winged Hussars is our faction and we are extremely proud of what we've achieved. We also fully accept the fact that anybody can support or work against our faction. This is perfectly fine. But I think it's totally understandable that after 2 years of working our bottoms for the entity we have created, after 2 years of ups and downs, wins and loses, wars and peace treaties, diplomatic actions, community events, NPC's we've created to support our lore and history, all the role playing and all the other things we've achieved, after all this, we consider The Winged Hussars OUR faction.

I'm sure there are many other groups like our one and that's what I mean that there are "guilds" in Elite. This is the context. So, if you are a stark adversary of the idea of guilds - please try to be objective and look at things from our point of view. Because the player factions are a thing in Elite and the game is not about a single player vs the universe anymore - however I believe it is still the biggest part of Elite. But the player groups (guilds/clans) are definitely part of Elite now - in the context I have presented above.

---

Now that we have that clarified, to the main part of my post:

PROPOSITION:

In the context of the above, I think that there is one feature missing from the game to better support player factions: the ability for the faction members to affiliate themselves with their faction IN GAME. We have forum signatures to show, we have external forums, we are flying under our faction banner for all this time and yet the only place where we cannot show we are part of this faction is the most important place - IN GAME.

This is very important for many groups out there. We are proud of what we've created and achieved as a group - and we'd like to show for it. Up till 2.3 there was no way to show the faction allegiance. With the arrival of ship names and ID's, it's the closest to what we have to be able to do that. In our group we use Ship ID as a "faction tag" to show we are working for The Winged Hussars, but anyone can add the same Ship ID as we use and that's no good.

So my proposal is to implement some basic faction management tools and faction recognition on the HUD. Just like the NPC's show which faction they belong to and Power members show their power allegiance.

All I'd like to see, as a group leader and creator of The Winged Hussars player faction is the ability for other players to pledge to my faction and for me to accept these requests. Then "The Winged Hussars" would show under their Commander names to indicate they are members of that faction.

This would be available only to the person that submitted the group and faction creation form to Frontier.

All the rest of the current implementation would stay the same - I don't want control over our assets, I don't want system restrictions or anything like that. I simply want to be able to pledge allegiance to my faction and have some basic control over who can be a member of my in-game player faction.

To the people that oppose the idea - please try staying objective and look at it from a large group's leader point of view. All I ask for is the ability to show my faction name in HUD, so I - and other group members - can be recognised as part of our faction in game. The people that are not part of our faction would still be able to support it, take missions, passengers and do all the other things they do now. I am not proposing to take anything away from anybody and I don't want to change other people's game or force them to do anything.


This change would not affect anybody's gameplay, it would only add integration between player factions outside and inside the game.


I wonder what the support for this kind of idea is out there in the community... Please post your thoughts below and [modhat on] may I ask to refrain from vitriol, sarcasm, personal remarks, offtopic posts about how bad Elite is or derailing this thread to Open/Solo debate. Let's have a civilised and meaningful discussion for once.


Thanks.

I wanted group tools/interaction within game for so long now, but now my group no longer plays, they moved on to other games. The lack of features literally made them not want to continue. When we used to lobby for it on this forum, we were just told to either "go play EVE", or were given some variation on a slipper slope fallacy regarding how it would destroy the game for players in solo, somehow. Entire leagues of sophistry, entire walls of nonsense, have been dedicated to somehow debunking the notion that allowing groups some interactivity within the game would somehow destroy it. A lot of this was before groups were introduced, but this at least sheds light on WHY there is so little functionality for them, because of baseless fear-mongering and an irrational fear of any feature contained in EVE online, even if it was a good feature. Sadly this negative attitude to multiplayer in general, is rampant on this forum.

 

[rootsrat]

For those who are concerned about 5C activities if group membership was open, how is that really any different from what we have now? Anyone can work for or against a faction as they please, they don't need to align with a faction. Factions and the BGS are not like powerplay. In powerplay you can join and work against your power by prepping bad systems for example. With the BGS you would sign up for a faction and then work against it? Your rep would drop pretty quickly doing that, there could even be a mechanic whereby you need to maintain a friendly relationship or better to keep membership.

I don't see how 5C could even be applicable here. Ok, if there were group comms you could spy on what was being discussed, but there again, how is that different from applying to join a group and doing the same anyway? Nobody needs to know what you are doing in game anyway. Your group could ask you what you are doing, and you report you are doing good work, while in reality, doing stuff to mess them up. They would never know unless you slipped up.

Personally I am not afraid of 5C. I am afraid of lack of counter-measure for when it happens with the automated solution. With player-controlled faction tags it'd be clear. No faction tag - not a member of the group.

There are pros and cons to both solutions. From my point of view - player-controlled would work best.

 

[Jane Turner]

I'd be curious to hear what kind of level gate people would feel was appropriate, if FD would only allow this as an automatic entitlement.

I've just checked and I am still allied which factions I last interacted with 2 years ago, though some I have declined to friendly only, which suggests that reputation is reasonably stable once acquired. On the other hand I have been allied with an "enemy" player faction and had that rep slide down to hostile pretty quickly - like overnight.

The issue with people flying flags of convenience would be they starting conflicts with other play groups on your behalf.... doing things which lowered your reputation with the community etc.

I think the biggest upside of an automated process (aside from it not requiring frontier to maintain a contact list and make server side changes to every different commander who wanted to pledge for a faction following a check with whoever is the designated gatekeeper) is that it unless a player group wanted a name or location change, it removes FD from the process of faction adoption. Any commander who wants to display a pledge to any faction can do as long as they pass the entry.