Concept to improve BGS and Faction gameplay

  1. Document Purpose
This document shows a concept to improve the long term gameplay with factions in the game Elite Dangerous. It includes
- pledging to a faction
- additional and precise information about the faction with a Faction Interface and additional API triggers
- additional ways to interact with other players by using the Faction Command Center
- player generated faction related missions


1.1. Basic Assumptions

The basic assumptions of this document are

  • No player owned station / assets
    Faction gameplay is supposed to be open to players and faction are not owned or defined by single players or player groups. There is no ownership

  • Endgame and long term motivation
    This concept is supposed to offert ways to have long term goals and long term motivation. It tries to find ways without randomness to improve gameplay.
1.2. Evaluation of complexity / additional ressources

The proposals are made with easy implementation in mind. They try to add small key improvements that interact and should be low to medium to implement.

2. Factions

2.1. New mechanic - Pledging

To leverage the BGS and have a channel to share information, players will be able to pledge to a faction.

To do so they can use a “Pledge” button, situated at the following UI elements.

  • In the missions screen for the faction
  • In the detailed influence overview on the right hand screen for the faction
  • In the “Factions” section on the left hand screen

After pledging to a faction additional information panels will become available in the Navigation tab under the “Galactic Powers” entry. The entry will be named “Faction”.

To unpledge there will be a button at the same positions as the “Pledge” button. A popup will appear to ask whether one is sure to unpledge. Once unpledged, you cannot pledge for a faction again until an hour for every day pledged to a faction has passed. (e.g. 35 days pledged, cannot pledge again for 35 hours).

2.2. The Faction Interface


The faction screen shows in a header section the name of the faction, the main system, the current status - including active or pending - and the system the state originates from. This is similar to the current faction status shown in the news section of stations.

Wolf 406 Transport & Co
Home System: Wolf 406
State: Expansion - Pending
In: Naitis

Below the Header section is a sortable list containing the systems the faction is in.
The list contains

  • Name of the system
  • Distance to current position
  • Ruling yes / no
  • Number of assets (stations, settlements) owned
  • The state the faction is in

The list is supposed to be customizable and allow to show additional entries

  • Population of the system
  • Security Level of the System
  • Wealth Level of the System
  • Crime Level of the System
  • Development Level of the System
  • Allegiance of the System

There is supposed to be a filter mechanic to filter the list with at least two operators that can be negative as well (e.g. show all entries, where we control 0 assets and the Allegiance is NOT Alliance)

Clicking on a system shows a detail screen on the right hand side and triggers an API influence, states and pending states entry for the system. The detail screen contains a list of factions in the system. In each faction entry the influence value, state, pending states and a list of the stations controlled by the faction are shown.

There is a jump off button to open the Galaxy Map showing the current filtered system list.

2.2. Faction Ranks

There are 3 additional levels of reputation for pledged factions.

  • Sergeant
  • Officer
  • General

Faction levels will be named differently for different government types.


2.3. Faction Command Center


In the Faction Command Center, orders for each system can be entered and voted for. The votes are not actual votes that result in any action, but show an image of needed action and urgency.
A vote lasts until the next tick, or until it is changed by the player.

Votes are system based and can be about the following actions

  • Exploration
  • Bounty Hunting
  • Combat Bonds
  • Trade
  • Mission Running
  • Smuggling
  • Pirating
  • Killing
  • None

Number of votes per rank

RankNumber of Votes
Cordial1
Friendly2
Allied3
Sergeant5
Officer10
General15


The Command Center allows to place votes.
It shows your current votes and a list of current votes ordered by number of votes descending.

Each player can spend up to 3 votes in each system, for one or multiple actions.


2.4. Player Generated Missions


For each reputation rank, players are allowed to enter missions.

Player Missions can be

  • Exploration
  • Bounty Hunting
  • Combat Bonds
  • Trading
  • Mining
  • Rare Trading
  • Standard Mission Running
  • Passenger Mission Running
  • Smuggling
  • Pirating
  • Killing

Each mission costs 1 million credits. A mission is about a target system, station, commodity or a target faction. The mission is shown on the Faction command center in a mission list. Only players pledged to the same faction can see the missions. You can enroll in a mission. Each player can enter a certain amount of missions each day


RankNumber of Votes
Cordial-
Friendly-
Allied1
Sergeant3
Officer5
General10


Once the faction member is enrolled, each action counting toward the goal, will receive a credit bonus until the 1.000.000 Cr. are used up


Action TypeBonus
Exploration25.000 per system handed in at target station (40 systems total)
Bounty Hunting10% additional bounty for target faction issued and/or superpower bounties in target system ( 10 mio bounties total)
Combat Bonds25% additional bond payout for combat bonds for target faction in target system ( 4 mio combat bonds total)
Trading1000 additional profit per ton of target commodity in target station ( 1000 tons )
Mining2500 additional profit per ton of target commodity in target station ( 400 tons )
Rare Trading2500 additional profit per ton of target commodity in target station ( 400 tons )
Standard Mission Running100.000 additional per mission from target system for target faction (10 missions)
Passenger Mission Running100.000 additional per mission from target system for target faction(10 missions)
Smuggling2500 additional profit per ton of target commodity in target station ( 400 tons )
Pirating2500 additional profit per ton of target commodity in target station ( 400 tons )
Killing10.000 additional credits per kill of target faction ship in target system (100 kills)


The intent is to allow players to steer the actions of other players into directions the player likes this faction to go to.

 
Last edited:
interesting suggestion!

some comments:

1. i'm missing the "None"-action vote, at least my experience with playing the BGS is that you often have systems where you actually want no action. not ure how you could reward other players for doing nothing, but i think it would be good to know whether any action is necessary.

2. ranks should be named in accordance to the goverment type.

3. I don't understand whether those player set missions/actions are only visible for other pledged players, or for all. imho for all.
 
interesting suggestion!

some comments:

1. i'm missing the "None"-action vote, at least my experience with playing the BGS is that you often have systems where you actually want no action. not ure how you could reward other players for doing nothing, but i think it would be good to know whether any action is necessary.

2. ranks should be named in accordance to the goverment type.

3. I don't understand whether those player set missions/actions are only visible for other pledged players, or for all. imho for all.

Thanks for the feedback! Clarified or added the suggestions.

Only pledged players should see it. A basic level of operational security would be nice.

On the other hand...
Custom Visibility Levels corresponding to member level would be nice. E.g. make a vision to attack another faction only visible for top ranked pledgees, but a trade mission visible for all.
 
Excellent suggestion in my opinion!

I am curious however, what securities have you envisioned for inserted PMF's where the group that requested it has definite interest in maintaining control of them. Would your proposition have blocks or restrictive measures prevent a hostile takeover from more numerous antagonists?

Also, have you given thought to the processing power and other assets required to enact this change? A powerplay-like complexity introduced to 75545+ (amount of factions listed on EDDB right now) factions to track, manipulate and execute during ticks.
 
Excellent suggestion in my opinion!

Thank you.

I am curious however, what securities have you envisioned for inserted PMF's where the group that requested it has definite interest in maintaining control of them. Would your proposition have blocks or restrictive measures prevent a hostile takeover from more numerous antagonists?

Well, the way I see it, no faction belongs to anyone. A player managed faction is a faction as all else. They can control the lore, but not the faction. So no, no blocks for "hostile takeovers" and it could be completely possible to "take over" other factions. But you cannot really "take over", just move into your own direction. You can already do this now, and I do not propose to change it. (I think this is part of the main brand of Elite. You are a pilot, and you can be affiliated, but you do not own anything except your ship).

Furthermore, the whole voting process is just for informational and coordination purposes. And the whole mission process is not supposed to actually influence, but more to nudge into the planned directions.

So basically: Yes, 5th columning would be an element that would happen and could be a legitimate vector of attack. As it is already.

Also, have you given thought to the processing power and other assets required to enact this change? A powerplay-like complexity introduced to 75545+ (amount of factions listed on EDDB right now) factions to track, manipulate and execute during ticks.

Votes will last only until the tick. Therefore the ressources will be limited to the factions that are actively being played.
The reporting / view layer from the faction interface will probably be cached by the DBMS between database and client.
In regards to missions the question is, how many players will actually play that feature. And in regards to getting payed for player missions I think you can handle this with intelligent flagging and calculating the transactions.

Processing power? I do not see this problem. My estimates of the players really interested in and using this feature are rather in the 10%-20% region. And data storage is not the problem, the use of the feature is the problem. There are 565 factions marked as player factions. Those are the ones that would definitely use this feature. If you add random players, you can maybe raise this by the factor 10. I'd guess 80% - 90% of the existing factions will not be used at all.
The main strain will be on the transaction server checking against existing player missions and handling the payout and the missions. And I do not know enough about them to have an educated opinion about the feasibility of the concept.
 
Last edited:
Great idea for adding more depth Flin - I really like it.
I'd agree with the distinction between being affiliated to factions but not owning them - even player inserted ones.

Good stuff :)
 
Some good ideas in this, but I have a couple of thoughts.
The "Vote for action" model won't work for all Player Groups.
I wouldn't really class even the AEDC as a voting democracy. More a meritocracy, based on effort and insight.

One of my main criticisms of the proposals of Rootstat and Beskore is that the in-game model of communication enforces a structure on all the groups. So for example within the AEDC - the strategic thinkers (the boffins upstairs at HQ) set goals and priorities after discussion. Would their votes be sufficient to set strategic priorities, or do they then also need to direct the votes of the wider internal AEDC CMDRs so that the public facing orders/actions are set?

Also some other groups have a much smaller group of directors and a much wider playerbase. Whatever comes into the game needs to work for a wide variety of organizational structures. Even a secret comms channel presupposes use cases for the Player Group. Some Player Groups thrive on complete transparency.

One key element that I am completely supportive of is the ability to Pledge to a Minor Faction in-game through in-game mechanisms. And it needs to visible. Worn with pride.

A lot of your proposal deals with ways to get information into the game from the player group. You have constructed a fair (but elaborate) method with voting for actions.

My counter proposal is much more straight forward and simple.
Player Groups nominate someone to have write access to one News Feed at stations they rule.
(Profanity Filtered etc).

This way the Player Group can communicate to the in-game public, and the mechanics of how they choose strategic direction is not enforced by the game.

There are some possibilities for abuse, but I think an option for reporting posts to moderation would be straight forward.
The news feeds would have to be clearly marked as Player Written and there would have to be some "contact the submitter" option, but I think this idea is worth serious consideration by Frontier.

The last positive for Player Group Writing News Feeds is the sense of "ownership" that it would bring.
There is a strong and vocal push for more "ownership" of Player Minor Factions. I think giving them "voice"
within the game is less unbalancing than giving direct ownership of assets, budgets, missions, bounties and so on.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input DNA.

Imho factions and player groups is a sensitive topic and the ownership of factions or elevated rights for some users not based on in-game mechanics should be avoided.
 
Thanks for the input DNA.

Imho factions and player groups is a sensitive topic and the ownership of factions or elevated rights for some users not based on in-game mechanics should be avoided.
I agree the mechanisms need to be in-game.
And I too am wary of elevating individuals to positions of de facto power.

But when groups are brought into the game, there is an existing part of the process where a point of contact is identified to Frontier. This is not the "leader" of the group, but Frontier only want to be dealing with one person from each group.
With the write access proposal, that point of contact will become much more publicly visible. I hadn't thought of that as a failing, but you're right - it does become an elevated position, and for many groups it will become the "leader" or voice of the group.

I'm not ready to give up advocating for this. I think discussion of possibilities around in-game group visibility, organization, direction, and information is healthy.

I just wish we had some indication from Frontier about where they would like to take this.
 
I'd rep DNA twice if it was possible for the fast-tracked player station news. Think of the possibilities if the article could spread along with faction presence!
 
I think every content should be in game.

The next part of this will be about stations and how to build, expand them for your faction. It might take some time, though ...

I think every content should be in game.

The next part of this will be about stations and how to build, expand them for your faction. It might take some time, though ...
 
I think every content should be in game.

Groups, friendships, we've made in this game, I believe a lot of that was possible because at some point, we had to reach out... to forums, to reddit, discord...
If all the tools were in the game, maybe it would lead to a closed circle, a bubble for a lot of players. I'm in favor of having external tools.

On the matter at hand, very good OP !
 
Back
Top Bottom