Better player faction integration between outside and inside the game

[Robert Maynard]

I think what I am asking is: I am missing something - why do you think it is a special case?

.... because players who have become allied and pledged to a Faction (and one Faction only) should, in my opinion, be working for the Faction and not against each other, hence the idea of a Faction penalty for attacking other pledged CMDRs.

 

[Pro Cambarus]

Instead, I would propose a very simple thing, which would actually support even more players in playing their game in the way they want to play:

Your proposal could seemingly help this, but I just cannot see how would this involve players in a teamwork of the faction that has specific goals and coordinated efforts towards these goals. Rewarding activities that hurts the coordinated work like in your example without incorporating pledging players to the information flow of your faction would provide a false sense of helping that faction and would work against the set goals, regardless their best intentions. It would also be a gap towards the opportunity of being introduced to the lore and added content of the faction if it has any. Pledge approval could be a simple mechanic to address this gap.

 

[rootsrat]

This is very much where I was coming from all the way back on the first few posts.

People should be able to pledge to any minor faction - not just the player factions and adopted ones. If a player group is false flagged - that's where good PR comes in. For it to become an issue it will have to manifest in Discord/Reddit/forum drama - which is where it should be dealt with. Not only false flagging but double bluff false flagging should be a thing. If this goes ahead I can see us running an official CIU pilot roster

I would still argue that the player created factions should have control over who they accept into their ranks in game, just as they do outside of the game. Just because someone gets Allied status, doesn't mean they've been helping that player faction. Player factions have their own goals and agendas and while we may want to have the next expansion from system A, someone who is not part of the group and is not aware of our plans, goals and strategy, may have been delivering lots of exploration data in system B in Solo, effectively causing the expansion to happen from system B. So:

1) They are gaining reputation while NOT helping at all.
2) We haven't got a clue about it, because they do it in Solo, so we can't even educate them.
3) They are cancelling out the efforts of multiple pilots that are dedicated to the cause of fulfilling our expansions plan.

I would certainly would not like for such a person to wear our faction name in game.

As for NPC factions, I think the reputation-controlled pledge system would work really good. For player factions, not so much.

 

[Schlack]

I would still argue that the player created factions should have control over who they accept into their ranks in game, just as they do outside of the game. Just because someone gets Allied status, doesn't mean they've been helping that player faction. Player factions have their own goals and agendas and while we may want to have the next expansion from system A, someone who is not part of the group and is not aware of our plans, goals and strategy, may have been delivering lots of exploration data in system B in Solo, effectively causing the expansion to happen from system B. So:

1) They are gaining reputation while NOT helping at all.
2) We haven't got a clue about it, because they do it in Solo, so we can't even educate them.
3) They are cancelling out the efforts of multiple pilots that are dedicated to the cause of fulfilling our expansions plan.

I would certainly would not like for such a person to wear our faction name in game.

As for NPC factions, I think the reputation-controlled pledge system would work really good. For player factions, not so much.

Is it suggested that only players formally tagged to the player faction can effect the faction positively? Is executive control of a faction being proposed? Neither will work I think

 

[rootsrat]

Is it suggested that only players formally tagged to the player faction can effect the faction positively? Is executive control of a faction being proposed? Neither will work I think

Not at all. None of the gameplay mechanics would change.

The only thing that faction leaders would have control of is who can display THEIR player faction name under the Cmdr name. That's all. And that's ONLY for player-created factions too.

 

[Schlack]

But how would that prevent 1,2 & 3 above? Sorry if I misunderstand, but the proposed solution does not appear related to the stated problems.

 

[rootsrat]

But how would that prevent 1,2 & 3 above? Sorry if I misunderstand, but the proposed solution does not appear related to the stated problems.

That would not prevent it - but it would prevent that person from wearing my faction colours, when all they did is acted against our plan. And I would not like for someone who is not actually a part of my group to be able to wear our colours.

My proposal is about integration of the out-of-the game entity with the in-game entity. That example was an argument against allowing to pledge based only on gaining Allied rep status with the in game player faction, because just because they are Allied, doesn't mean they are actually helping.

 

[Schlack]

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[rootsrat]

And like I said - for the NPC factions, I think that rep-based pledge is a good idea, as this would allow for independent pilots not to feel excluded, while still allowing player factions to be accurately represented in game.

 

[Igor[Rock]]

Your proposal could seemingly help this, but I just cannot see how would this involve players in a teamwork of the faction that has specific goals and coordinated efforts towards these goals. Rewarding activities that hurts the coordinated work like in your example without incorporating pledging players to the information flow of your faction would provide a false sense of helping that faction and would work against the set goals, regardless their best intentions. It would also be a gap towards the opportunity of being introduced to the lore and added content of the faction if it has any. Pledge approval could be a simple mechanic to address this gap.

Er, you mighty not have gotten the memo - but right now, people can do missions for your player factions as well and as such do whatever they want without you having any chance to influence anything they do. So nothing would change, besides the fact that people would be able to show that they are supporting a minor faction (and to maybe get some better prices and discounts from them in the process).

So what exactly is your problem? That you don't get more control over "your" player faction? If it's that, then I am actually happy if that will never be the case, since this would mean that you are telling other people how to play their game...

Always remember: there are no clans or any "player lead" factions in the game (and they are not wanted, either - that's confirmed by FD as such), you can only decide to have a player group which will try to influence (see it as "lobbying") a minor faction (for which you could choose a name and government type as well - ONCE) by doing missions and other stuff for them - but the BGS is the one which decides what happens in the end, and the BGS is not (and should not be) controlled by any player group.

As such, your objection actually is not an objection, but a request for more power to player groups in game - which, as I wrote before, I don't like (and obviously neither does DB like it).

- - - Updated - - -

I would still argue that the player created factions should have control over who they accept into their ranks in game, just as they do outside of the game. Just because someone gets Allied status, doesn't mean they've been helping that player faction. Player factions have their own goals and agendas and while we may want to have the next expansion from system A, someone who is not part of the group and is not aware of our plans, goals and strategy, may have been delivering lots of exploration data in system B in Solo, effectively causing the expansion to happen from system B. So:

1) They are gaining reputation while NOT helping at all.
2) We haven't got a clue about it, because they do it in Solo, so we can't even educate them.
3) They are cancelling out the efforts of multiple pilots that are dedicated to the cause of fulfilling our expansions plan.

I would certainly would not like for such a person to wear our faction name in game.

As for NPC factions, I think the reputation-controlled pledge system would work really good. For player factions, not so much.

Well, as I wrote in my answer before, it wouldn't change a single thing if you can control who "pledges" to a "player created (not controlled!) minor faction" - since everybody can still take missions from that group, shoot down ships of other groups (or even the player created faction itself) without you being able to do anything about it (as it should be). The only thing this would add would be some kind of "feeling privileged because I am a member of a group" in game - which as such is not a good thing at all. And the whole "nobody should be able to do something we don't like while wearing our colours" thing is just something to play snuggle bunny with your feelings - it doesn't work like that in the real world, either. For example, if I want to put "Hell's Angels" on the back of a leather jacket and wear it, I can do that without any problems - but I will be at least beaten up every time somebody who actually is a member of them will catch me. You are actually asking to take away that option from the game.

So what you are actually asking for is to be able to control other player's behaviour - which is something I will oppose (and do so quite vocally) as long as I am playing the game myself.

 

[rootsrat]

Er, you mighty not have gotten the memo - but right now, people can do missions for your player factions as well and as such do whatever they want without you having any chance to influence anything they do. So nothing would change, besides the fact that people would be able to show that they are supporting a minor faction (and to maybe get some better prices and discounts from them in the process).

So what exactly is your problem? That you don't get more control over "your" player faction? If it's that, then I am actually happy if that will never be the case, since this would mean that you are telling other people how to play their game...

Always remember: there are no clans or any "player lead" factions in the game (and they are not wanted, either - that's confirmed by FD as such), you can only decide to have a player group which will try to influence (see it as "lobbying") a minor faction (for which you could choose a name and government type as well - ONCE) by doing missions and other stuff for them - but the BGS is the one which decides what happens in the end, and the BGS is not (and should not be) controlled by any player group.

As such, your objection actually is not an objection, but a request for more power to player groups in game - which, as I wrote before, I don't like (and obviously neither does DB like it).

- - - Updated - - -



Well, as I wrote in my answer before, it wouldn't change a single thing if you can control who "pledges" to a "player created (not controlled!) minor faction" - since everybody can still take missions from that group, shoot down ships of other groups (or even the player created faction itself) without you being able to do anything about it (as it should be). The only thing this would add would be some kind of "feeling privileged because I am a member of a group" in game - which as such is not a good thing at all. And the whole "nobody should be able to do something we don't like while wearing our colours" thing is just something to play snuggle bunny with your feelings - it doesn't work like that in the real world, either. For example, if I want to put "Hell's Angels" on the back of a leather jacket and wear it, I can do that without any problems - but I will be at least beaten up every time somebody who actually is a member of them will catch me. You are actually asking to take away that option from the game.

So what you are actually asking for is to be able to control other player's behaviour - which is something I will oppose (and do so quite vocally) as long as I am playing the game myself.

IMHO you then don't really understand what it means to be a part of a player group and have your own faction in game, and a feeling of belonging to something really good. I realise there will be players like you who disagree with my point of view, which is fine.

 

[Xender]

Er, you mighty not have gotten the memo - but right now, people can do missions for your player factions as well and as such do whatever they want without you having any chance to influence anything they do. So nothing would change, besides the fact that people would be able to show that they are supporting a minor faction (and to maybe get some better prices and discounts from them in the process).

So what exactly is your problem? That you don't get more control over "your" player faction? If it's that, then I am actually happy if that will never be the case, since this would mean that you are telling other people how to play their game...

Always remember: there are no clans or any "player lead" factions in the game (and they are not wanted, either - that's confirmed by FD as such), you can only decide to have a player group which will try to influence (see it as "lobbying") a minor faction (for which you could choose a name and government type as well - ONCE) by doing missions and other stuff for them - but the BGS is the one which decides what happens in the end, and the BGS is not (and should not be) controlled by any player group.

As such, your objection actually is not an objection, but a request for more power to player groups in game - which, as I wrote before, I don't like (and obviously neither does DB like it).

It is big problem that player created factions for someone are something important because they basically created it and for others it is nothing more than background. The most ridiculous is that, the peoples wants to have access to everything, even if there are many similar factions in universe. So locking few wont affect their game, but they are stubborn and it must be done as they want, because game can't change and they can'y accept changes...


In that case.. Maybe Frontier should introduce new layer of factions, some kind of minor factions which are created by players, totally controlled by players and can freely support major factions.

 

[RamirezKurita]

IMHO you then don't really understand what it means to be a part of a player group and have your own faction in game, and a feeling of belonging to something really good. I realise there will be players like you who disagree with my point of view, which is fine.

And that's exactly it, with pledging you would belong to the faction, not the faction belonging to you. The supreme head honcho is the NPC leader of the faction, not the players that choose to support them. The players are just mercenaries who choose to support them, they don't have any actual political power within the faction. The player wants to belong to the faction, not to the player group that supports them.

It's no different to the Powerplay groups that try to organise their powerplay stuff via reddit and 3rd party forums. They don't claim to be Zach's boss, they are just a vocal group of people who are pledged and try to coordinate their activities, but they don't expect to have any say as to who can bear Zachary Hudson's insignia as that's between the applicant and Zachary Hudson's staff, not between the applicant and Hudson's most vocal supporters.

 

[rootsrat]

And that's exactly it, with pledging you would belong to the faction, not the faction belonging to you. The supreme head honcho is the NPC leader of the faction, not the players that choose to support them. The players are just mercenaries who choose to support them, they don't have any actual political power within the faction. The player wants to belong to the faction, not to the player group that supports them.

It's no different to the Powerplay groups that try to organise their powerplay stuff via reddit and 3rd party forums. They don't claim to be Zach's boss, they are just a vocal group of people who are pledged and try to coordinate their activities, but they don't expect to have any say as to who can bear Zachary Hudson's insignia as that's between the applicant and Zachary Hudson's staff, not between the applicant and Hudson's most vocal supporters.

You are correct only when it comes to NPC factions. The player created factions are something more than JUST a BGS faction in game. They have a group of players that created history and lore for that faction, and in that sense that player group does own the in game faction.

Why is it such a big problem to accept the fact that player controlled groups are part of the game now and that we DO have a representation IN GAME in the form of OUR factions?

 

[Schlack]

IMHO you then don't really understand what it means to be a part of a player group and have your own faction in game, and a feeling of belonging to something really good. I realise there will be players like you who disagree with my point of view, which is fine.

Well we have something a little different in AEDC. We have our player group and our adopted factions as separate entities - there is no faction named AEDC. As Igor[Rock] intimated above, we can only support our chosen factions, we don't have and never will have executive control. if 1000 players decided tomorrow to take our faction in another direction they could and there is little we could do. (unlikely to happen thankfully!)

If I get what you are staying you wish to have an in-game ability to control pledges to your playergroup. I am not sure that this achieves much. That level of control is always likely to be external to the game without some significant redesign. That is also a direction that FD have not shown much interest in. ED is quite a bit different from other MMOs.

This is why I am far more supportive of some means of pledging to the faction rather than the player group - the ability to pledge gated by working for that faction. This should not be quite as restrictive as power-play pledging, any decay of status should be over a far longer period, or should take account of all your activity without an upper limit.

 

[Mohrgan]

You are correct only when it comes to NPC factions. The player created factions are something more than JUST a BGS faction in game. They have a group of players that created history and lore for that faction, and in that sense that player group does own the in game faction.

Why is it such a big problem to accept the fact that player controlled groups are part of the game now and that we DO have a representation IN GAME in the form of OUR factions?

Because you already have Player Groups in game. You have a Roster, and a way to communicate. You are suggesting new features for the game. Those suggestions become an open conversation when you bring them to the Forums.

The idea is that a player group shouldn't involve benefits for joining, besides joining. In the spirit of inclusion and how the game works now, expanding how a Faction can be supported is something everyone can get behind, and take advantage of. Whether you are a 'joiner' or not. If the only reason is a PG wants control over their Tags, don;t offer Tags. Problem solved. To keep in step with the philosophy of the game, there should be a BGS path to Tagged status, for every group included in the BGS. That ensures no exclusions in game.

PG's would still be able to control their roster, and comms, just as they do now. Time and effort put into a Faction should determine what Tags you can wear, not the random PG Leader.

 

[rootsrat]

Again - I don't want any control. All I would like to see is for members of OUR group to proudly display OUR faction's name below our Cmdr names. I'd like to be able to accept who can display that name. That's all.

No faction control, no change to anyone's gameplay or ability to support/act against our faction. JUST the display of our faction's name for our members

It's just a cosmetic thing that means a lot to us. I really can't understand why some players oppose that so badly... Does it hurt that I will be able to decide if someone can't display the name? But they can't do it now either. So literally NOTHING changes for them.

Someone may say it's bragging and if you see that way, fine - we want to brag about what we've achieved over the last to years, because we're proud of it If someone sees that as a bad thing, fine - everyone is free to have an opinion.

But what I propose has literally no impact whatsoever on anyone's gameplay.

---

Because you already have Player Groups in game. You have a Roster, and a way to communicate. You are suggesting new features for the game. Those suggestions become an open conversation when you bring them to the Forums.

The idea is that a player group shouldn't involve benefits for joining, besides joining. In the spirit of inclusion and how the game works now, expanding how a Faction can be supported is something everyone can get behind, and take advantage of. Whether you are a 'joiner' or not. If the only reason is a PG wants control over their Tags, don;t offer Tags. Problem solved. To keep in step with the philosophy of the game, there should be a BGS path to Tagged status, for every group included in the BGS. That ensures no exclusions in game.

PG's would still be able to control their roster, and comms, just as they do now. Time and effort put into a Faction should determine what Tags you can wear, not the random PG Leader.

Any source for "The idea is that a player group shouldn't involve benefits for joining, besides joining" or is it just your view on things? Because my view is different.

As for the "In the spirit of inclusion and how the game works now, expanding how a Faction can be supported is something everyone can get behind, and take advantage of. Whether you are a 'joiner' or not." bit - what I propose won't change that at all.

 

[RamirezKurita]

You are correct only when it comes to NPC factions. The player created factions are something more than JUST a BGS faction in game. They have a group of players that created history and lore for that faction, and in that sense that player group does own the in game faction.

Why is it such a big problem to accept the fact that player controlled groups are part of the game now and that we DO have a representation IN GAME in the form of OUR factions?

And yet, the new power in town, Yuri Grom, is also player created and yet it is managed in-game just like any other power?

Players laying the initial foundation for something to appear in game, is just that - getting the ball rolling. Once the ball is rolling, it's outside the player's hands. The players have no further special relationship once that initial lobbying phase ends, the faction has outgrown it's creators is now firmly in the hands of the BGS and the NPCs. You keep saying that the player created factions are more than just a BGS faction, but, personal sentiments aside, they are treated exactly like every other faction.

Yes, we understand your favourite faction means a lot to you in-game. Yes, you might have supported them, built them up from a single little system and continue to support that faction in-game. However, from the rest of the galaxy's perspective, it is just another minor power. I personally spend 90% or so of my time in-game supporting the PRE, but that doesn't mean I should get any influence over the faction, I don't claim that the PRE is "mine", if anything I "belong" to the PRE instead.

Player controlled groups I am fine with, as long as they remember that player mercenary fleets ≠ minor factions. Player groups are just groups of like-minded individuals that work together, they were around long before even lobbying for extra minor factions was a thing.

And you do have representatives in-game for your factions, just not player ones. Dock with any station that your faction has a presence in, hop onto the mission board and you will see a representative of your faction offering you missions. You even get different representatives based upon your reputation with the faction, plus they often have extra representatives covering the passenger lounge and the special contacts. Each faction has probably about half a dozen or more different in-game representatives, all with names and faces.

 

[rootsrat]

@Ramirez - Guess the only thing left to do is agree to disagree, as we'll never convince each other or reach consensus

 

[Mohrgan]

Again - I don't want any control. All I would like to see is for members of OUR group to proudly display OUR faction's name below our Cmdr names. I'd like to be able to accept who can display that name. That's all.

No faction control, no change to anyone's gameplay or ability to support/act against our faction. JUST the display of our faction's name for our members

It's just a cosmetic thing that means a lot to us. I really can't understand why some players oppose that so badly... Does it hurt that I will be able to decide if someone can't display the name? But they can't do it now either. So literally NOTHING changes for them.

Someone may say it's bragging and if you see that way, fine - we want to brag about what we've achieved over the last to years, because we're proud of it If someone sees that as a bad thing, fine - everyone is free to have an opinion.

But what I propose has literally no impact whatsoever on anyone's gameplay.

---

Any source for "The idea is that a player group shouldn't involve benefits for joining, besides joining" or is it just your view on things? Because my view is different.

As for the "In the spirit of inclusion and how the game works now, expanding how a Faction can be supported is something everyone can get behind, and take advantage of. Whether you are a 'joiner' or not." bit - what I propose won't change that at all.

For me, it's about keeping players from controlling anything. If the BGS can handle it, the BGS should handle it. I would avoid any in-game perks or devices that is gated, gifted, or bestowed by a player.

Say, a player is in a PG for a long while, he is allied, and has a bunch invested in his Faction. Then, he has a tiff the the Grand Poobah and is ejected from the PG. In your suggestion, that player would loose the tags he earned, over personal issues. Not good. Leaving it in the hands of the BGS, that player would have to annoy the whole Faction, before loosing his tags. This is just a random example, and isn't reflective of anyone, it just points out a flaw, that has been part of the Generic Guild/Clan/Cult scenes since the dawning of time.

We have a clean slate here, well almost, we should preserve the uniqueness of E|D, not homogenize it into all the other offerings floating around out there.