FRC and the Alliance

[DNA-Decay]

Any FRC CMDRs want to take up this topic?
Anyone care to explain why some folks seem to have good access to GalNet and some dont?
Or why a Player Group isn't obliged to put a name to their byline?
Federal Republican Command: https://inara.cz/wing/722/

Nevermind, I'm a bit busy tonight.
Mic T and Eddie had a backlog of orders to fill.
Deadlines - you know how it is.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Honestly, no surprise. Alliance content accepted on Galnet from the community seems to come invariably from anyone other than Alliance CMDRs and groups.

Remember Mahon's watch on the Leesti flip?
Remember that the only local news that made it into Ross 128, was written - and thank you, at least something got into the game about it as our submission was as usually rejected - by an Empire CMDR?

 

[Martin Schou]

It wouldn't be a bad idea to link to the article. Not everyone can see the picture it seems.

Just to expand on this a bit - it's not a freelance article, so either someone from FDev went to the FRC group and asked them their opinion on the CG or someone from FRC sent a comment to someone from FDev, which then turned into an article. Both are problematic for a huge variety of reasons.

If it was a freelance article, did FRC (a Federation group) just get permission to speak on behalf of the Alliance?

Did FDev talk to FRC because it was a CG hosted in a Hudson system? If so, this had better be part of a brand new initiative to talk to the PowerPlay groups when CGs happen in PowerPlay areas.

The reason some of us get salty about this, is that Galnet is the ONLY in-game method of getting a message across to **EVERYONE** in game (provided they read Galnet), and it seems like every time the Alliance is mentioned it's either an FDev article (perfectly fine) or it has non-Alliance groups and players as authors (which is just messed up).

Galnet, like so many things in this game, started out as a nice idea that never panned out properly, is badly managed and badly implemented, and this is just yet another example of it.

Currently Galnet is made up of 95% automated stuff (CGs started/completed, PowerPlay Hourly Update, Weekly Health Report, Weekly Startport Status, Weekly Security Report, Weekly Economic Report, Weekly Democracy Report, PowerPlay Incoming Update, Weekly Expansion Report etc), 4.9% FDev story line and 0.1% player submitted articles.

The local news is worse. That's 99.9% automated stuff (faction status summary, traffic report, best sellers, automated news about faction state changes, crime report, bounty board and bounty hunting report) and once in a blue moon a player submitted article will show up.

There's an enormous potential in Galnet, and it's being squandered because anyone who tries to submit anything quickly finds that it's more rewarding talking to a wall while standing in a mound of fire ants.

For starters, player backed factions should have a simple and easy way to inject stories into local Galnet in all the systems in which they have a presence. If they fail to be adults about such access, remove their access for a while. If they fail again, penalize the faction by pushing it to 0.1% influence in all its systems and force it into massive retreat. But start by treating them as responsible adults who aren't going to spam the local Galnet with lewd articles.

 

[Ouberos]

It wouldn't be a bad idea to link to the article. Not everyone can see the picture it seems.

Just to expand on this a bit - it's not a freelance article, so either someone from FDev went to the FRC group and asked them their opinion on the CG or someone from FRC sent a comment to someone from FDev, which then turned into an article. Both are problematic for a huge variety of reasons.

If it was a freelance article, did FRC (a Federation group) just get permission to speak on behalf of the Alliance?

Did FDev talk to FRC because it was a CG hosted in a Hudson system? If so, this had better be part of a brand new initiative to talk to the PowerPlay groups when CGs happen in PowerPlay areas.

The reason some of us get salty about this, is that Galnet is the ONLY in-game method of getting a message across to **EVERYONE** in game (provided they read Galnet), and it seems like every time the Alliance is mentioned it's either an FDev article (perfectly fine) or it has non-Alliance groups and players as authors (which is just messed up).

Galnet, like so many things in this game, started out as a nice idea that never panned out properly, is badly managed and badly implemented, and this is just yet another example of it.

Currently Galnet is made up of 95% automated stuff (CGs started/completed, PowerPlay Hourly Update, Weekly Health Report, Weekly Startport Status, Weekly Security Report, Weekly Economic Report, Weekly Democracy Report, PowerPlay Incoming Update, Weekly Expansion Report etc), 4.9% FDev story line and 0.1% player submitted articles.

The local news is worse. That's 99.9% automated stuff (faction status summary, traffic report, best sellers, automated news about faction state changes, crime report, bounty board and bounty hunting report) and once in a blue moon a player submitted article will show up.

There's an enormous potential in Galnet, and it's being squandered because anyone who tries to submit anything quickly finds that it's more rewarding talking to a wall while standing in a mound of fire ants.

For starters, player backed factions should have a simple and easy way to inject stories into local Galnet in all the systems in which they have a presence. If they fail to be adults about such access, remove their access for a while. If they fail again, penalize the faction by pushing it to 0.1% influence in all its systems and force it into massive retreat. But start by treating them as responsible adults who aren't going to spam the local Galnet with lewd articles.

I have to agree.

In the spirit of being happy to be proved wrong another article will be submitted soon regarding an in game BGS event for a small Independent player group. It would surprise me greatly if I am proved wrong.

Any FRC CMDRs want to take up this topic?
Anyone care to explain why some folks seem to have good access to GalNet and some dont?
Or why a Player Group isn't obliged to put a name to their byline?
Federal Republican Command: https://inara.cz/wing/722/

https://inara.cz/data/gallery/34/34007x1135.jpg

Nevermind, I'm a bit busy tonight.
Mic T and Eddie had a backlog of orders to fill.
Deadlines - you know how it is.

https://inara.cz/data/gallery/34/34006x4575.jpg

Out of reps but great picture. Really catches your good side!

 

[VampyreGTX]

I'll comment on this. This was not a player submitted article. I had submitted a Galnet article request shortly after the CG started. In the RP aspect, I wrote one as a Fed faction questioning the Alliance so quickly turning their backs on Aegis, and had a quote about conspiracy theorists accusing the Alliance of trying to hide interactions with the Thargoids... [alien] My version also had a call for a 'blockade' of non-fed ships as it was in a Hudson Control system. Given that FDev had their own article they were writing it seems on the same subject, they took our story and simply added the FRC as an example of a player group's response.

Out of other articles I've submitted, I've only had 1 published locally. This took my 150 word article and simply transferred our player group name to their own story out of my entire 'news'story.

Outside of triple elite player groups like Canonn, I haven't really seen any group getting preferential treatment to Galnet access, and even less so to global galnet. Most player group articles get limited to local system news to the systems they've requested or that their story effected.

I also think more people should submit articles, especially player groups. I know that there is actually not a lot of article requests being submitted. Granted, it would mean more work for whoever reviews and approves them, I would love to see more CMDR submitted 'freelance reports'.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

oh, we're still doing it. But usually have a larger, more informative version we'll publish elsewhere, knowing full well that the Galnet article will be rejected, as usual. There's been a pattern established.

We would strongly support a full time Galnet editor that would lead to multiple player driven story lines per week galaxy wide, and constant local news updates, rather than 99.9% procedurally generated. Let the player generated events and achievements be seen by the rest of the community!

 

[Martin Schou]

I'll comment on this. This was not a player submitted article. I had submitted a Galnet article request shortly after the CG started. In the RP aspect, I wrote one as a Fed faction questioning the Alliance so quickly turning their backs on Aegis, and had a quote about conspiracy theorists accusing the Alliance of trying to hide interactions with the Thargoids... [alien] My version also had a call for a 'blockade' of non-fed ships as it was in a Hudson Control system. Given that FDev had their own article they were writing it seems on the same subject, they took our story and simply added the FRC as an example of a player group's response.

Out of other articles I've submitted, I've only had 1 published locally. This took my 150 word article and simply transferred our player group name to their own story out of my entire 'news'story.

Outside of triple elite player groups like Canonn, I haven't really seen any group getting preferential treatment to Galnet access, and even less so to global galnet. Most player group articles get limited to local system news to the systems they've requested or that their story effected.

I also think more people should submit articles, especially player groups. I know that there is actually not a lot of article requests being submitted. Granted, it would mean more work for whoever reviews and approves them, I would love to see more CMDR submitted 'freelance reports'.

As someone who has tried submitting a lot of articles, both local and global, the complete lack of feedback ruins any and all motivation. The "Triple Elite" part is equally ruinous to motivation - I know our player group works in close to 1,700 populated systems (all of Mahon space), but since we work on close to a thousand different factions, we're not Elite enough, because our own player faction is tiny.

 

[Ouberos]

Out of other articles I've submitted, I've only had 1 published locally.

I know that there is actually not a lot of article requests being submitted. Granted, it would mean more work for whoever reviews and approves them, I would love to see more CMDR submitted 'freelance reports'.

I think most groups are now aware they wont get anything published so don't bother, there are much better routes to market that actually have a positive vibe. As you say, you have only had one accepted by Galnet.

 

[Goose4291]

This thread is exactly why i get so antsy about frontiers weird group favouritism model of community involvement.

 

[Apos]

This thread is exactly why i get so antsy about frontiers weird group favouritism model of community involvement.

To be fair, if you look deeper you will find out that even the groups perceived as being favourited in reality get quite shafted in a lot of what they envision themselves to be achieving in game or they get ignored for months and in reality they aren't being that favoured, etc.

With the current approach, no one is happy really.

 

[DNA-Decay]

One of my main problems with GalNet is that it tries to present as an "official, canonical and neutral voice".
And somewhat anonymous.
Which is just rubbish.

The FFE journals were much better for having submissions that had a clear agenda and a style to match. There were several newspapers coming from Empire, Federation or Alliance viewpoints. And they put different spin on the same event.
Everything that Corrigendum or Jaitou submits should be clearly marked: CMDR SoAndSo.

For groups there is a single point of contact to Frontier.
So for example with us - anything we submit has already done a lap and suffered a bit of Death-By-Committee.

After we submitted for the Ross 128 achievement I was contacted by Corigendum who was looking to get something published on the topic.

I asked him to hold off, as we had something in the pipeline. But that if he did submit - it should be clearly from a rabidly Empire viewpoint.

And as expected, Corrigendum's submission is accepted and ours not.

My problem is NOT that Frontier published something by Corrigendum. "Voice of the Empire", Trusted source, consistent and long term writer, etc - more power to him, great that some folks have voice. Hundreds of articles on GalNet by him.

No.

My problem is that a group with: serious intent, well researched lore, track record of strategic territorial claims, with a point of contact with Frontier, who review their submissions internally, who accept that Frontier may rework a submission to fit (as has happened here with FRC) - that we do not get to publish also.

I made a strong case around Ross 128 and used plenty of lore sources to back it up.
Of course the case goes to far. It's made by a "useful idiot" of the Alliance. But somewhere within what Apos submitted and the case I presented on a framework of lore and what Frontier intended with Ross 128 back in FE2 and FFE - somewhere in that - is what happened.

Ross 128 is a significant milestone on a major project.
It makes a challenge to some existing lore.



But it's easier to give nothing than to figure out what anything means.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;7ikxvy3EinM]https://youtu.be/7ikxvy3EinM[/video]

 

[VampyreGTX]

FRC has a point of contact as well, but with certain requests (such as the Rum CG), I stay anonymous. That one I actually submitted from my personal email address in my own name, so as to avoid any preferential consideration, even if unintended.

I've learned that players cannot alter/modify existing lore in the grander scheme. Articles written from that standpoint will automatically be declined. A more neutral (or simply a 'comment' on a subject' like the FRC quip in the CG article) stance will have an opportunity to get published.

I have noticed that ALL 'freelance' reports written by players do have a name associated with them as a 'writer', be it the actual CMDR name or a pen-name.

I would really like to see FDev publish more player articles, and for now, as they still build out the galaxy and main storyline, am fine with leaving the heavy lore untouched by CMDRs.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

...I've learned that players cannot alter/modify existing lore in the grander scheme. Articles written from that standpoint will automatically be declined. ....

And this is a serious problem. These news articles don't come about because of nothing. They report on actual events in the game. Rejecting news articles that describe a change in the real game world, leads to a divergence between the lore and the reality of the galaxy we can actually visit.

So, we have the weird anomaly in the game that new Ensigns visit Ross 128, and find it is an Alliance system. That Warren Prison Mine welcomes them to Alliance space. And essentially nothing in the game that explains that. And of course, the system description makes no sense now, not least because the black market is closed.

One galaxy/BGS across all modes, right? But the lore doesn't care and therefore is increasingly a parallel universe.

 

[VampyreGTX]

Not to get back into the Ross 128 argument, the Fed Navy STILL maintains the permit on the system. While an alliance faction may be the controlling MINOR faction, the system permit is still enforced by the Fed Navy.

To add, you guys should have known this would end this way, as the FDL took a major Imperial drydock... The station welcomes you to a Fed station, as a drydock right outside sits with 2 majestic's...

While I wish the galaxy was more 'responsive' to every player action, I can't even imagine the devs trying to keep up with all the changes, etc that would be required.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

It's not enforced by the Federal Navy. There is no Federal Navy there. It's your FSD. They just need a firmware upgrade.

That aside, the main point is that it's just very annoying that player generated changes are neither acknowledged, nor a platform exists to communicate such changes through as players and player groups. Most of these changes wouldn't dramatically change or affect the larger story line, but could exactly be the color that makes the galaxy feel more alive. As well as make players feel that their actions are meaningful and affect their surroundings.

But our expectations have been set very low. I remember an "Alliance" CG where an ex-Federation president asked for goods to be delivered to an indy station, and the resulting megaship was given to an indy faction. As the 2.4 updates go through, we are fully prepared we'll end up being like the traitors to humanity or something... Or, just be the first to be wiped out.

 

[Vasious]

Does seem odd that the Alliance is almost always views from an outside lense

 

[VampyreGTX]

Well, you got FDevs attention! LOL

From the patch notes: • Encourage factions to not expand into starsystems that require permits

 

[Apos]

Well, you got FDevs attention! LOL

From the patch notes: • Encourage factions to not expand into starsystems that require permits

 

[Ian Doncaster]

From the patch notes: Encourage factions to not expand into starsystems that require permits

Interesting. "Encourage" seems like quite a weak word - so maybe this hasn't been achieved by putting a full expansion lock on every permit system.

Perhaps it's still possible to expand into one if you Invest first, for instance, or if the alternative would be an aggressive expansion into a system with 7 factions already?

 

[SubitusNex]

Well, you got FDevs attention! LOL

From the patch notes: • Encourage factions to not expand into starsystems that require permits