Player "Minor Powers"

[Baronvonsplosion]

When I first heard about Player factions I absolutely loved the idea that the players could directly shape the BGS. Unfortunately, Player factions just mean that a squad of reasonable size can control "their" faction, which is just a BGS faction that is friendly towards the squad. For some people, this is apparently enough, not me. I want a streamlined way for squadrons to claim any independent system to start a player faction that can actually, directly control the BGS around it. Not just a cool sticker inside a station menu that recognizes some shadowy influence to a preexisting faction, but by an actual power that can expand their influence by a government of commanders that can directly control what goes on inside any controlled system. Once the player faction is in control of 10+ systems in relative stability it can become what I call a "Minor Power". Minor Powers are, just as the name suggests, are player-run powers lesser to the galactic powers.

Anyway, if "Minor Powers" and the ability for a squad to progress through the stages to become one would not only 'spice up' the familiar grind, but give something else for people in the community to talk about. To put more of the community's interest into what is happening in-universe to take a break from complaining to Frontier about things they should do/add (like this). I have very little to no idea about how this would all work, but the basic goal is for players to take direct control of what happens in the game.

I've run out of things to say so, criticism is welcome.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I want a streamlined way for squadrons to claim any independent system to start a player faction that can actually, directly control the BGS around it.

What do you actually mean by this? Players already directly and collectively control the entire BGS - all events in it are as a direct result of some player action.

Do you mean that your player faction would only accept positive inputs from squadron members and ignore them from passing players?
Do you mean that your player faction would only enter BGS states with squadron approval?
Do you mean that other players would not be able to attack your faction with BGS methods?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I want a streamlined way for squadrons to claim any independent system to start a player faction that can actually, directly control the BGS around it.

Players influence, but do not control, Factions. Squadrons do not own or control Factions. The BGS is affected by all players, not just those who support a particular Faction.

.... and neither players nor Squadrons can claim any system as their own.

 

[and_ft]

Isn't a Player Minor Faction a player group/squadron started faction - that appears in-game?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Isn't a Player Minor Faction a player group/squadron started faction - that appears in-game?

It is - however, once inserted into the game, it is treated exactly the same as an NPC faction. The only limitation is that a system can only be home system to one player Faction.

 

[and_ft]

It is - however, once inserted into the game, it is treated exactly the same as an NPC faction. The only limitation is that a system can only be home system to one player Faction.

Cool thanks. Then OP is not entirely correct - the player owned factions are not pre-exisiting.

However, I would love the idea of players having more control over their owned minor factions. EVE does this very well with the player driven market economics and manufacturing.

It would be awesome, if you had to use mined materials to manufacture commodities and modules which again could be used to manufacture whole ships. Ships prices would then fluctuate due to supply and demand.

Anybody know why Frontier doesn't allow more direct player economy - like player to player purchases of e.g. ships, engineered modules and materials?

 

[DaveC]

Yeah, it's been discussed to death on here over the past 5 years.
The TLDR goes something like: it's not Eve, we don't want it to be Eve, it's Elite.

 

[and_ft]

Yeah, it's been discussed to death on here over the past 5 years.
The TLDR goes something like: it's not Eve, we don't want it to be Eve, it's Elite.

Too bad. Really loved the player driven economics + manufacturing as well as the Hi, Lo, Null Security mechanics of EVE. Everything else, Elite does so much better. (haven't been to EVE for a few years though).

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It would be awesome, if you had to use mined materials to manufacture commodities and modules which again could be used to manufacture whole ships. Ships prices would then fluctuate due to supply and demand.

Possibly. I think this sort of thing can work great in single-player games where "one player gets extremely rich at everyone else's expense" is a feature, not a bug. In a MMO the odds are extremely high that you are in the "everyone else" category, which is too much like real life for most people. (Real life only gets away with it because no matter how much you hate it you still need to eat)

The big problem with this sort of idea is the scale of the galaxy. The average player population of a populated system at any instant is quite a bit less than 1. What you'd either get is that tiny amount of player activity being sufficient to keep the entire economy running ... in which case, the economy wouldn't really respond to player activity more than it currently does - or almost every system would suffer rapid economic collapse and only a few centres would remain where big player groups had got enough of a mining chain going. In that case, demand would exceed supply, further reinforcing the economic power of the big centres ... and concentrating wealth in the hands of existing players who'd had five years to get their fleets built while it was easy. Keeping the economy balanced between those two extremes would be exceptionally difficult to do - especially since the balance would depend on the number of active players, which fluctuates significantly on daily, weekly and annual cycles.

It also makes some play styles far better supported than others - if you like mining, great! Everyone and everywhere always needs miners and haulers. If you like exploring ... firstly it's not clear how exploration data helps the economy, and secondly if you take a three month expedition you may find that the economy has collapsed while you were out and you need to spend the next three months painstakingly rebuilding it just so you can repair your exploration ship for the next trip. Combat likewise is basically just an expense, best avoided.

Also ... what do people pay for the ships with? If demand for ships exceeds supply, what can you pay someone for a ship that they can then make use of themselves? "Enough components to build another one" is one answer - but in that case you could just have made your own. "Credits" doesn't help, because what do you spend those credits on?

Anybody know why Frontier doesn't allow more direct player economy - like player to player purchases of e.g. ships, engineered modules and materials?

What this really comes down to is trading time for time - if I have an engineered module you want, then you need to pay me something equivalent to the time it took me to make it. If those are credits ... well, I could just have got those credits myself directly rather than building an engineered module and trying to sell it. Likewise you could have just built your own module rather than grinding credits to pay me for it.

So the only transactions that are really supported are:
1) We're both generally efficient at cash or material gaining, and we use this to spend time on activities we each enjoy.
2) One of us is horribly inefficient at cash or material gathering, and the other is exploiting that to get a bargain.
3) One of us is actually getting out-of-game or meta-game advantages for it (e.g. "You pay me £100 out of game and I sell you an engineered Anaconda for 10 credits in game. Or maybe I just run off with the £100 and am never seen again. Who knows?")

Cases 2 and 3 are things that they want to avoid, and case 1 Frontier has been trying to make mostly unnecessary by diversifying the ways cash and materials can be gained.

 

[and_ft]

Possibly. I think this sort of thing can work great in single-player games where "one player gets extremely rich at everyone else's expense" is a feature, not a bug. In a MMO the odds are extremely high that you are in the "everyone else" category, which is too much like real life for most people. (Real life only gets away with it because no matter how much you hate it you still need to eat)

Except, it works for EVE. It's a 100% MMORPG with no volountary PVP (disclaimer: as I recall it was approx 8 years ago).

The big problem with this sort of idea is the scale of the galaxy. The average player population of a populated system at any instant is quite a bit less than 1. What you'd either get is that tiny amount of player activity being sufficient to keep the entire economy running ... in which case, the economy wouldn't really respond to player activity more than it currently does - or almost every system would suffer rapid economic collapse and only a few centres would remain where big player groups had got enough of a mining chain going. In that case, demand would exceed supply, further reinforcing the economic power of the big centres ... and concentrating wealth in the hands of existing players who'd had five years to get their fleets built while it was easy. Keeping the economy balanced between those two extremes would be exceptionally difficult to do - especially since the balance would depend on the number of active players, which fluctuates significantly on daily, weekly and annual cycles.

A matter of sound game design.

This could easily be turned into an advantage. The Galaxy is always so big, that if your area gets too crowded, and there's too much competition over resources, move your squadron out into the black and setup at new mining centre and shipyard. NPC population could follow if you're succesful, generating some sort of passive income, as long as living conditions and security is acceptable.

This would require the following activities, all supported by the current E.D mechanics:

• Exploration to find the best systems (abundant resources in rings and on planets nearby)
• Mining to gather resources
• Trading/hauling to bring in necessary commodities (essential life support and in time luxury items)
• Passenger missions to transport NPC population who wants to migrate to this "new gold rush" systems
• Combat missions to provide system security and force protection against NPC and possibly player pirates

It also makes some play styles far better supported than others - if you like mining, great! Everyone and everywhere always needs miners and haulers. If you like exploring ... firstly it's not clear how exploration data helps the economy, and secondly if you take a three month expedition you may find that the economy has collapsed while you were out and you need to spend the next three months painstakingly rebuilding it just so you can repair your exploration ship for the next trip. Combat likewise is basically just an expense, best avoided.

As I understand it, mining is already the go-to activity, if you like credits, so not much change there. If the scenario described a above could be implemented, it would actually give a higher purpose and thus value to activities such as exploration and combat.

Also ... what do people pay for the ships with? If demand for ships exceeds supply, what can you pay someone for a ship that they can then make use of themselves? "Enough components to build another one" is one answer - but in that case you could just have made your own. "Credits" doesn't help, because what do you spend those credits on?

Good point. The way EVE solved this, was by having RPG elements, where you trained your pilot (by spending real time) to increase his different abilities. You could either spend time making him able to build stuff or make him able to use stuff such as larger ships.

What this really comes down to is trading time for time - if I have an engineered module you want, then you need to pay me something equivalent to the time it took me to make it. If those are credits ... well, I could just have got those credits myself directly rather than building an engineered module and trying to sell it. Likewise you could have just built your own module rather than grinding credits to pay me for it.

Except, I don't want to mine or engineer - I'd rather spend my time doing activities I love.

So the only transactions that are really supported are:
1) We're both generally efficient at cash or material gaining, and we use this to spend time on activities we each enjoy.
2) One of us is horribly inefficient at cash or material gathering, and the other is exploiting that to get a bargain.
3) One of us is actually getting out-of-game or meta-game advantages for it (e.g. "You pay me £100 out of game and I sell you an engineered Anaconda for 10 credits in game. Or maybe I just run off with the £100 and am never seen again. Who knows?")

Cases 2 and 3 are things that they want to avoid, and case 1 Frontier has been trying to make mostly unnecessary by diversifying the ways cash and materials can be gained.

I agree wholeheartedly with no. 3. I don't see a problem with an unfair universe, where the smart or capable get a leg up compared to the inefficient or inexperienced. Likewise, if I play in Open, I accept that PVP and gankers are a risk. It adds life to the universe.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Except, it works for EVE. It's a 100% MMORPG with no volountary PVP (disclaimer: as I recall it was approx 8 years ago).

True, though EVE has fewer players than Elite Dangerous by most measures, so "works" is relative. The "second job" approach to a game doesn't necessarily have wide appeal.

A matter of sound game design.

Sure. But it's not the sort of game design that can just be theorycrafted on a notepad and sim and then work first time. EVE's economy had years of balancing passes while the game was slowly growing - and took quite a while to evolve to what it is now. Dropping anything like this into Elite Dangerous would mean years of disruption while it was tweaked into correctness. I certainly don't think the player base has the patience for that. Possibly it could be incrementally introduced - Frontier have made certain bits of both the economic and political sim more complex over the last couple of years - but it's a long way off if so.

This could easily be turned into an advantage. The Galaxy is always so big, that if your area gets too crowded, and there's too much competition over resources, move your squadron out into the black and setup at new mining centre and shipyard.

In theory, yes. Again, balancing it in practice when player groups vary in size across three orders of magnitude is trickier. If you look at existing squadrons, about a third of players are in squadrons under 10 members, about a third are in squadrons 10-100 members, and about a third are in squadrons with 100-500 members. The largest concerted player efforts - big community goals, or the Distant Worlds 2 expedition, have been in the 10,000 player range. A "do X, get permanent change Y" mechanism that works across that entire range is I think impossible to balance satisfactorily (without encouraging a strong drift towards EVE-style mega-consortiums being the only way to play)

As I understand it, mining is already the go-to activity, if you like credits, so not much change there. If the scenario described a above could be implemented, it would actually give a higher purpose and thus value to activities such as exploration and combat.

There's a big difference between "if you need a lot of money quickly, mine" and "if you need the economy to work at all so you can do anything else, mine", though. At the moment if you don't want to mine there are plenty of other ways to make credits, and limited uses for credits

Good point. The way EVE solved this, was by having RPG elements, where you trained your pilot (by spending real time) to increase his different abilities. You could either spend time making him able to build stuff or make him able to use stuff such as larger ships.

Which works for EVE because it's an abstracted control interface so both "building" and "flying" and lots of other things can have numeric skill levels, and it can be made impractical to have a single pilot to be able to do everything, so the "mutual advantage" part of trade works fine. I don't see how something equivalent would work in Elite Dangerous, though

Except, I don't want to mine or engineer - I'd rather spend my time doing activities I love.

Sure, and I think a lot of people suggesting some sort of "pay other players to engineer for you" take the same view. Question is, how much would you pay - on top of the stock module price - for a G5 module? Would you expect enough other players to be offering G5 modules for that price that you could get one?

From my point of view, I pick up enough materials playing the game that I can G5 my own - small - fleet very easily without any "grind". I don't pick up enough G5 that way to do other people's too, and you couldn't pay me any amount of credits to do it. If there are players who find the material gathering and engineering process so much fun that they spend most of their time engineering ships that they never fly ... there's probably not enough to keep the supply side of the market going.

 

[Baronvonsplosion]

To have some answers, this is an ideal situation in my makeshift idea of ways that A squadron/Player faction could theoretically become a "minor power". I understand that Player factions are treated just like pre-generated BGS factions, but the owners of the faction can't do much with it besides spread its influence. What I mean by saying "taking control of the BGS directly", is that the owners of the faction have a say on what happens within a given system under the Player faction influence. For example, the creation of a megaship or new mining operations, or control mission types and what modules are available at starports. Also some of your questions I just can't answer because I haven't thought this out enough yet, it's just a concept at this point.

 

[Baronvonsplosion]

Just the progression from Squad → Player Faction → Minor Power would entail huge amounts of detail, like having an economy to manage as @and_ft said. "if you had to use mined materials to manufacture commodities and modules which again could be used to manufacture whole ships. Ships prices would then fluctuate due to supply and demand" because we do see that happen within economies of Galactic powers, so why would a Minor Power not have to deal with that as well?

 

[Jmanis]

The original Powerplay proposal was that factions would rise and fall from the status of being a Power on a regular basis. Like many things about Powerplay, that was never implemented, though even if that theoretically happened, it wouldn't allow commanders to control those Powers in the way you suggest.

As already pointed out though, placing any player control over that makes no sense, you are not "part of" nor do you control factions, so the concept of player control over their activities makes no sense.

All for factions rising and falling from the status of Powers like mentioned, all against any direct control by players. We're independent Pilot's Federation Commanders, not partisan agents. The entire suite of your interactions with the game universe is contingent on that, and falls apart as soon as you aren't.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A while ago I tried to meld BGS and Powerplay into something similar to what you describe-

A : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-mechanics-that-work-with-the-new-bgs.508604/

B: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-v-2-using-squadron-megaship-mechanics.408451/

 

[and_ft]

Sure. But it's not the sort of game design that can just be theorycrafted on a notepad and sim and then work first time. EVE's economy had years of balancing passes while the game was slowly growing - and took quite a while to evolve to what it is now. Dropping anything like this into Elite Dangerous would mean years of disruption while it was tweaked into correctness. I certainly don't think the player base has the patience for that. Possibly it could be incrementally introduced - Frontier have made certain bits of both the economic and political sim more complex over the last couple of years - but it's a long way off if so.
(...)
In theory, yes. Again, balancing it in practice when player groups vary in size across three orders of magnitude is trickier. If you look at existing squadrons, about a third of players are in squadrons under 10 members, about a third are in squadrons 10-100 members, and about a third are in squadrons with 100-500 members. The largest concerted player efforts - big community goals, or the Distant Worlds 2 expedition, have been in the 10,000 player range. A "do X, get permanent change Y" mechanism that works across that entire range is I think impossible to balance satisfactorily (without encouraging a strong drift towards EVE-style mega-consortiums being the only way to play)

You make some really good points, and I agree with the challenges. I can see numerous ways it could be wildly imbalanced and exploited in-game as well as out. There are doubtless much more challenges than those I see.

What I described above was more a vision than something I believe FD would ever add. I just miss those aspects of EVE. I made my millions margin trading modules on the player market. Buying low in out of place low security corners of the galaxy and running them back to the big trade hubs. Often at considerable risk from player pirates. I miss those times. Best MMO experience I've ever had.

There's a big difference between "if you need a lot of money quickly, mine" and "if you need the economy to work at all so you can do anything else, mine", though. At the moment if you don't want to mine there are plenty of other ways to make credits, and limited uses for credits.

Basically. I would like mining to have more utility. i.e. the materials are actually used for something, and supply and demand fluctuates (be it NPC or PC needs). I am looking forward to the January update in that regard.

But there needs to be more money sinks, and preferably also some that allow you to shape a tiny corner of a system and thus be more visible to other players. Repairs and even rebuys could be more expensive for one.

What if you could buy a "space station starter kit"?
You would need to haul in massive (mined) materials and commodities. Then you would have to keep supplies flowing. You could do it yourself, or more realistically, it would take a small squadron to maintain a couple of stations. Or if you had the credits, you could set up transportation missions or just set the station to buy X amount of commodities at Y price, and advertise for player traders to provide the supplies.

It would be great, if there was a player market for missions, contracts and commodities.

Have you flown flight sims, and if so, have you tried FSEconomy? The FBO (base) mechanics there works quite well, allowing players to leave an individual mark in the persistent world, but ensuring it drained resources.

From my point of view, I pick up enough materials playing the game that I can G5 my own - small - fleet very easily without any "grind". I don't pick up enough G5 that way to do other people's too, and you couldn't pay me any amount of credits to do it. If there are players who find the material gathering and engineering process so much fun that they spend most of their time engineering ships that they never fly ... there's probably not enough to keep the supply side of the market going.

That's how I roll so far. And I am having a lot of fun unlocking the engineers (3 down - a lot to go). But ultimately, it's a single player experience even though I fly in Open. It's a shame, because the world and the BGS has so much potential (albeit with a little less "background" a little more "(player) simulation" ; ).

I thoroughly enjoyed taking part in the "Year's End" CG in Reorte, even got ganked once. How awesome would it not be, if something like this (on a smaller scale) could be player initiated and driven?

Cheers,

07

 

[and_ft]

The original Powerplay proposal was that factions would rise and fall from the status of being a Power on a regular basis. Like many things about Powerplay, that was never implemented, though even if that theoretically happened, it wouldn't allow commanders to control those Powers in the way you suggest.

As already pointed out though, placing any player control over that makes no sense, you are not "part of" nor do you control factions, so the concept of player control over their activities makes no sense.

All for factions rising and falling from the status of Powers like mentioned, all against any direct control by players. We're independent Pilot's Federation Commanders, not partisan agents. The entire suite of your interactions with the game universe is contingent on that, and falls apart as soon as you aren't.

It makes no sense to you.

As it is right now, Commanders with billions of credits to their name are not able to pool their resources into squadrons (they can join squadrons all right - but they cannot invest anything besides time in a player squadron or minor faction).

It makes no sense to me, that those multi-billionaire moguls would not want to retain more direct control and influence over the minor factions they have founded.