In game fleet management tools
- Thread starter Vicktore Beskor
- Start date
- Status
The implementation and existence of Powerplay proves otherwise so does Frontier's spotlight focus on player groups.
Hello OP.
I am somewhat sympathetic to your call having helped organise a handful of players throughout most of 2015 working to expand and support a NPC minor faction. External tools are free and easy to use for half a dozen to a dozen players, I suspect the problems scale out of control quite quickly.
My thoughts.
1- Fleet tags so we can distinguish our ourselves as a fleet
Seems fair enough to me. I think any player should be able to pledge themselves to any minor faction whether player minor faction or NPC minor faction. Not sure if tagging should mean killing the tagged player has the same affect as killing an NPC of the faction. I think it might be too open to exploit. Given the changes to player faction injection being proposed by FD, I imagine more player groups will adopt and existing NPC faction they have already worked with over and above injecting a new minor faction and having to work from scratch. It is just the nature of being 6 months on from the introduction of player minor factions.
2- Fleet mail do to the time zone issues that all fleets have an in game mail would be very helpful.
This would be nice. Not sure the inbox currently survives a trip back to main menu at the moment. This would require a new set of servers for the post office service, ultimately I think I would prefer the resource and operational cost to be allocated somewhere else, there are plenty of external alternatives. Obviously if the game does go the way of Eve and the majority of players end up affiliated with player factions, then the allocation of resource and operational cost would need to reflect this. Tagging from (1) would go someway to allow FD to measure if and when they need to invest further resource and/or infrastructure for player groups.- at the moment they are a small minority.
3- Fleet chat even though we have a teamspeak server a chat would help to keep the hole fleet communicating with each other.
FD have already stated this is do-able but their are technical and cost challenges to implement. The seems the same situation as (3).
4- A way to invite or dismiss members in game
At the moment in-game factions are NPC entities influences by the same named player group (and other individual and groups). You can actually use in-game private groups to control and communicate who is in or out to the group. This seems to scale well into the many 10s or possibly the 100s. There is clearly a limit, I am guessing somewher e in the late 100s that the Morbius group has come across, but I do not imagine too many player groups have a 1000 members ..... yet..
1 and 4 are related and this relationship seems to be the step too far for some of us. Gating at the organisational level makes sense, and can be done now (either externally or with private groups). Adding the tag mechanism into the game and then handing control of the tag to a person or group allows for easier isolation of a system in open. Whilst your group may not want to do this, there have been plenty of others that. at one time or another, have done this already, without the aid of tagging. Either non-group players have to ride the blockade in open or remember to switch to solo/private to enter particular systems. I cannot support anything that makes this situation more common. So the combination of 1 and 4 is just too open to exploitation in open for my liking.
Neither 1 or 4 are b ad things in themselves, and I can see why in your position you would like them. Having moved on from group play this year, I can see some player groups coming up with new "emergent game play" which always seems to be to detriment of the community. So If we cannot have 1 without 4, then I would prefer neither make it into the game and player group managers will need to continue administering outside of the game or with private groups to control and communicate membership.
Simon
I am somewhat sympathetic to your call having helped organise a handful of players throughout most of 2015 working to expand and support a NPC minor faction. External tools are free and easy to use for half a dozen to a dozen players, I suspect the problems scale out of control quite quickly.
My thoughts.
1- Fleet tags so we can distinguish our ourselves as a fleet
Seems fair enough to me. I think any player should be able to pledge themselves to any minor faction whether player minor faction or NPC minor faction. Not sure if tagging should mean killing the tagged player has the same affect as killing an NPC of the faction. I think it might be too open to exploit. Given the changes to player faction injection being proposed by FD, I imagine more player groups will adopt and existing NPC faction they have already worked with over and above injecting a new minor faction and having to work from scratch. It is just the nature of being 6 months on from the introduction of player minor factions.
2- Fleet mail do to the time zone issues that all fleets have an in game mail would be very helpful.
This would be nice. Not sure the inbox currently survives a trip back to main menu at the moment. This would require a new set of servers for the post office service, ultimately I think I would prefer the resource and operational cost to be allocated somewhere else, there are plenty of external alternatives. Obviously if the game does go the way of Eve and the majority of players end up affiliated with player factions, then the allocation of resource and operational cost would need to reflect this. Tagging from (1) would go someway to allow FD to measure if and when they need to invest further resource and/or infrastructure for player groups.- at the moment they are a small minority.
3- Fleet chat even though we have a teamspeak server a chat would help to keep the hole fleet communicating with each other.
FD have already stated this is do-able but their are technical and cost challenges to implement. The seems the same situation as (3).
4- A way to invite or dismiss members in game
At the moment in-game factions are NPC entities influences by the same named player group (and other individual and groups). You can actually use in-game private groups to control and communicate who is in or out to the group. This seems to scale well into the many 10s or possibly the 100s. There is clearly a limit, I am guessing somewher e in the late 100s that the Morbius group has come across, but I do not imagine too many player groups have a 1000 members ..... yet..
1 and 4 are related and this relationship seems to be the step too far for some of us. Gating at the organisational level makes sense, and can be done now (either externally or with private groups). Adding the tag mechanism into the game and then handing control of the tag to a person or group allows for easier isolation of a system in open. Whilst your group may not want to do this, there have been plenty of others that. at one time or another, have done this already, without the aid of tagging. Either non-group players have to ride the blockade in open or remember to switch to solo/private to enter particular systems. I cannot support anything that makes this situation more common. So the combination of 1 and 4 is just too open to exploitation in open for my liking.
Neither 1 or 4 are b ad things in themselves, and I can see why in your position you would like them. Having moved on from group play this year, I can see some player groups coming up with new "emergent game play" which always seems to be to detriment of the community. So If we cannot have 1 without 4, then I would prefer neither make it into the game and player group managers will need to continue administering outside of the game or with private groups to control and communicate membership.
Simon
The way is see it soom of what I ask for is in the game all ready we have private groups all they have to do is allow us to name the group and have that name be seen in open play as a tag for example if you belong to Mobius you would have a Möbius tag by your name. No matter what instance you are playing in open, private, solo.
I like the way you presented your proposal CMDR! As I have already said in another thread this morning the guilds and fleets are already in the game. However your request is different in that it does not come across as dripping with entitlement and I like that. I can see the point in what you ask for, I would however counter some of them.
1. Tags. I understand why you'd want these but they should have a toggle. To many players the name of your fleet is of no interest or importance. See number 4 also
2. An in game mail system for use with your friends list would be better. This would cater for everyone not just the fleet players who should have no advantage of any kind over any other single CMDR.
3. Lore breaking mechanic IMO. Sorry but that's how I see it. You have TS, ask your members to use it. If you have a large number of players using it you then have to manage how TS is used - all part of running a group that is for you to do.
4. This would not be a problem as it would just be a duplicate of the friends system but called something different.
Just my thoughts and opinions.
Good Hunting CMDR o7
Last edited:
If anyone here plays MechWarrior Online, they have player 'units' as well, and there are in-game tools to manage their 'unit'. It's very effective, and only affects those in the 'guild' (why can't they all use the same word?). They use a 4 character tag, and there is a unit-wide chat that allows you to instantly communicate with any other members of your unit who are online (if they're not in TS, for example). I don't think you should be able to impact what missions/pledges players can take on if they're not in your unit...but if they join your unit, you should be able to make the rules.
And THOSE took years to make into MWO, despite it being a team oriented PvP game from the ground up, go figure. And that's a key point there, MWO IS a team oriented game, while Elite: Dangerous isn't a team oriented game at all, that's actually not something the guy who's behind it is big on, David Braben, he's not fond of guilds and all that stuff.
So, to expect team oriented tools in a game that's very decidedly not team oriented, well, that's like expecting kosher food at fast food joint, not really viable.
I'd like them, I'm a team oriented player myself, but I also realize that's not this game's focus, it's not this game at all, so asking for that stuff, yeah, not really seeing the point when it's clearly not part of their design plan.
I have to say this game is very much a team game if you want to involve yourself in things like the BGS you can not manipulate the BGS all by yourself you need a fleet of commanders to do it affectively. And as far as fleet tags they are more important than just the letters behind your name. They are your reputation as well as the reputation of the fleet you belong to. And having the ability to invite or band someone out of the fleet makes sure the type of commanders who are apart of the fleet understands the values of the fleet.
Whether or not you want to admit it there are already fleets in game and they are not going anywhere. Plus I feel that it would be nice if the community would appreciate the content that fleets create for the community as well as all the hard work and dedication we put into the game.
I have to say this the Earth Defense Fleet is in Elite Dangerous for the long haul we are not a fly by night fleet. And it would be nice if the developers would understand this and make in game Fleet Management truly apart of the game.
Last edited:
Funny, but I've had this argument with others many times, I'm actually very much AGAINST any individual or even a small group(under 50 people) being able to influence the BGS, many are all about the individual, themselves usually, not only being able to influence, but being able to do so without too much effort.
And guess what...the BGS works as they want, not as I want, an individual can move the BGS, they do it all the time, it's a bit slower than a small group(10 people) doing it, but it works when an individual does it, I've done it myself. I really don't like that at all, seems very...broken to me, considering so many aspects of the game work as they should in this regard, as in an individual can't corner any markets, and so on. I can't corner a market, but I can topple governments! As I said, that's what many people demand, seems FD has given in to those demands, so...yeah...no, not a team oriented game man, no matter how much you want it to be, it's not.
I'm fully aware of the groups in this game, I belong to one myself, we're allied with others, I watched the PvP league matches, etc. I don't care what EDF wants, you picked the wrong game if you wanted a team oriented game, and that's a simple fact. That's been a constant lament about this game, the total lack of team oriented design, which is totally inline with that David says this game is meant to be...YOUR story, a single pilot, alone, making their way in the universe. Not THEIR story, a group of pilots working together for whatever reason, that's not what Elite was ever about, it's not what Elite: Dangerous is about either. Wrong game man, ya'll want Star Citizen for that, sorta kinda...it's more team oriented, but like E: D, you won't get to run jack but the ships you own, not taking over sectors of the market, no running you own space stations or planets, no manufacturing stuff...yeah, SC won't be allowing that either. EVE allows that stuff, but that's spreadsheets, not real time in the cockpit/on foot/hand to hand in your face gaming. Just kind of out of luck in that area, sorry.
I could not disagree with you more this is at its core a very much team based game if it was not it would be offline then. And as far as a solo commander manipulating the BGS yes it can happen of course but that would be an up hill battle at best. And to say I should look for another game is just out to out rude.
And why not add player owned stations and systems to Elite I feel that it would bring a lot of player driven content. Is this not a sandbox game? I truly believe it is fear that makes this community not want in game fleet management tools. Player fleets only adds to the richness of the game adding content and story along side of what the developers can create. And I feel that is what David wanted to create otherwise Elite Dangerous would have been a offline game. He has said he wants player owned stations in game as well. I say this to you if you want to be the lone commander in the galaxy play in solo mode and let us who play in open have the tools we need to create content and manage our fleets efficiently I don't see any harm in asking for that.
And by the way EVE Online got it right the way you manage fleets and control system. And I play Elite because I like stick and rudder over point and click and I see no reason why with 400 billion star systems that we can not have a system like eve in game I truly think there is enough room In the game for it. Or is it you just want a small bubble of humanity and just empty space all around you. Why make a game with 400 billion systems and not lets us colonize and manage some of it.
Last edited:
Opinion. Opinion. And more opinion.
Yes. Better comms tools.
Yes. Better fleet management tools.
No. To ownership and deciding who plays and who doesn't.
Solo players and group players have every right to access every part of the game. Not to be dictated to by you or any other player.
Elite Dangerous is not your personal empire building game.
You provide emergent Gameplay for YOURSELF and others of a like mind.
There are thousands of players who don't give a rats rear who you are and what you do. It does not impact on their game. It does not impact on their playstyles.
It is entirely unemergent for them.
That is the beauty of Elite Dangerous.
I have put countless hours into role-play, into creating stories and backgrounds for any number of players in a few different gaming environments. I do this freely. I do this because I enjoy the story we engage in. I don't do it and then demand that Elite Dangerous should bow down and feed my glorious ego and my voracious need to lord it up.
Yes. Better comms tools.
Yes. Better fleet management tools.
No. To ownership and deciding who plays and who doesn't.
Solo players and group players have every right to access every part of the game. Not to be dictated to by you or any other player.
Elite Dangerous is not your personal empire building game.
You provide emergent Gameplay for YOURSELF and others of a like mind.
There are thousands of players who don't give a rats rear who you are and what you do. It does not impact on their game. It does not impact on their playstyles.
It is entirely unemergent for them.
That is the beauty of Elite Dangerous.
I have put countless hours into role-play, into creating stories and backgrounds for any number of players in a few different gaming environments. I do this freely. I do this because I enjoy the story we engage in. I don't do it and then demand that Elite Dangerous should bow down and feed my glorious ego and my voracious need to lord it up.
Last edited:
First off I am not trying to build an Empire for myself that's number one. Second let's look at the power play mechanics and think about what the community goes through. They are always fighting a 5th column who work against their strategies and all it ever dose is just create chaos. That is not what I am asking for and there is room in this game for player fleets. Remember I am not asking you to join us or even participate in content we create all I am asking for is the tools to manage a fleet in game. And no one can give me a good reason why they can not be in game other than " that not what Elite is about " and I say that Elite can be about both you can go out and do what ever your heart wants all by yourself or you can join a fleet of players who have the same goals and objectives. To say that it can never happen in Elite Dangerous is just short sighted. There is more than enough room for both types of game play if we are given the tools to do so again 400 billion stars systems. This community can not give me a good reason why a group of players can not go out to the other side of the Galaxy and start their own Empire. All I ever here is cause I said so well that is not good enough. I would love to see a group do just that to go out into the void and create a all new bubble of humanity. Elite could be that game I don't see any reason why it can not.
I would like to put this scenario to the community. Now you have to use your imagination and think out of the box for a minute.
Let's say that these game mechanics are in game.
1- proper fleet mechanics
2- proper player owned station mechanics
3- proper player owned system mechanics
Here we go. The Space pilgrims after years building up there numbers they have decide they no lover can take living under the rule of the core systems and they want to leave and start a new bubble of humanity 60,000 ly away on the other side of the Galaxy.
So they start by sending out explores to find them a new home. While that is being done they start packing up all their ships with what they need. Space station construction modules mining equipment and haulers and fighters ships.
They find an new home system and head out on their adventure. All 10,000 of them.
After a few weeks of travel they finally reach their new home and start building.
They start by anchoring their Space station building module in orbit of their new home planet. They start mining resources and feed the module to build their station. While this is going on they start scouting their new space. Finding new materials and new commodities. After the station is built. They start to up grade it so the can make spaceports construction modules. That they can build spaceports on the surface of their new home.
Seeing that they still need some commodities from the core worlds they start packing out their new commodities to take back and trade with. Creating new interstellar trade routes.
Seeing these fat juicy trade ships traveling across the galaxy. Smelly Bob the pirate decides to start a new gang called the Smelly Dude Crew. And start to hunt down theses traders and steal the fat juicy cargo.
To protect these fat juicy trade ships the Space Pilgrims and the core world create a new police force called the interstellar fuzz.
The IF travel with the trade ships to provide protection. While this is going on a new group of space commanders called the space pep Boys start building space stations along the shiping lanes as space truck stops.
After becoming filthy rich Smelly Bob decides he wants to become a pirate king so he he builds his oun station and calls it the Smelly hangout. Soon his kingdom grows. And his second in command become jealous so he plans to take over and chase Smelly Bob out of his kingdom.
Now I could go on but I leave the rest up to you all. But in all honesty if Elite Dangerous had game mechanics like this would you really rage quit. I think not. And where in this scenario dose it stop you from doing your own thing. And if you are going to say that's not Canon I say this if you don't try to evolve game play and innovate the game will become stale and empty.
We can argue over what works and what dose not till we are blue in the face. But we should be thinking about the big picture and how Elite Dangerous can stand out of the crowd.
I have a to say that I would like to see Elite Dangerous grow into a game like this. And remember people 400 billion systems to play in.
Let's say that these game mechanics are in game.
1- proper fleet mechanics
2- proper player owned station mechanics
3- proper player owned system mechanics
Here we go. The Space pilgrims after years building up there numbers they have decide they no lover can take living under the rule of the core systems and they want to leave and start a new bubble of humanity 60,000 ly away on the other side of the Galaxy.
So they start by sending out explores to find them a new home. While that is being done they start packing up all their ships with what they need. Space station construction modules mining equipment and haulers and fighters ships.
They find an new home system and head out on their adventure. All 10,000 of them.
After a few weeks of travel they finally reach their new home and start building.
They start by anchoring their Space station building module in orbit of their new home planet. They start mining resources and feed the module to build their station. While this is going on they start scouting their new space. Finding new materials and new commodities. After the station is built. They start to up grade it so the can make spaceports construction modules. That they can build spaceports on the surface of their new home.
Seeing that they still need some commodities from the core worlds they start packing out their new commodities to take back and trade with. Creating new interstellar trade routes.
Seeing these fat juicy trade ships traveling across the galaxy. Smelly Bob the pirate decides to start a new gang called the Smelly Dude Crew. And start to hunt down theses traders and steal the fat juicy cargo.
To protect these fat juicy trade ships the Space Pilgrims and the core world create a new police force called the interstellar fuzz.
The IF travel with the trade ships to provide protection. While this is going on a new group of space commanders called the space pep Boys start building space stations along the shiping lanes as space truck stops.
After becoming filthy rich Smelly Bob decides he wants to become a pirate king so he he builds his oun station and calls it the Smelly hangout. Soon his kingdom grows. And his second in command become jealous so he plans to take over and chase Smelly Bob out of his kingdom.
Now I could go on but I leave the rest up to you all. But in all honesty if Elite Dangerous had game mechanics like this would you really rage quit. I think not. And where in this scenario dose it stop you from doing your own thing. And if you are going to say that's not Canon I say this if you don't try to evolve game play and innovate the game will become stale and empty.
We can argue over what works and what dose not till we are blue in the face. But we should be thinking about the big picture and how Elite Dangerous can stand out of the crowd.
I have a to say that I would like to see Elite Dangerous grow into a game like this. And remember people 400 billion systems to play in.
Last edited:
As a fleet leader I am Always looking out for my membership and trying to make fleet life easier for them and if I have the tools in game to create new and exciting content the better fleet leader I can be.
Last edited:
In order to manage a fleet - first you'll need a fleet. Elite has Wings - and I doubt very much player groups in instances over the internet will ever get much bigger than that. Network latency is the determining factor here.
It is not about how many commanders in one instance it is about keeping the fleet on point and communication with in the fleet. Again I am talking about the big picture not about the small details. You have to think out side of the box and stop looking at the limitations that Elite has.
Last edited:
Then IRC does all you need.
Again it is about having the tools IN GAME
Last edited:
- Status