Serious discussion on proper fleet mechanics

[Robert Maynard]

How could any player / group of players hope to accrue the credits to buy (i.e. own) even one station, much less a whole system with potentially billions of inhabitants?

Plus the fact that DBOBE said the following on the topic of executive control:

The Escapist: Are you interested in seeing Elite: Dangerous move more into the Eve Online space?

Braben: I don't feel like that. The way I see it, the important difference between Eve Online and us is that Eve is an executive control game and Elite: Dangerous isn't. That's a big differentiator. What I see us doing is moving more into the richness of the experience and expanding the depth of space gameplay. I think the more games we have in the science fiction genre the better, because it's a genre that has been languishing for a bit. If you think about the way people work together in squad-type games like Battlefield 4 or even in Warcraft raids, the fun of it is in playing together and actually planning a little bit ahead. I've seen it a little bit in slightly more arcadey games as well, like Battlestations Midway, where a group of four players go against another group of four players and the difference in tactics makes a big difference. It's not symmetric. Someone might go in with a big Anaconda and essentially draw the fire, but then there will be other players in more nimble ships.

 

[Sunsol]

How could any player / group of players hope to accrue the credits to buy (i.e. own) even one station, much less a whole system with potentially billions of inhabitants?

Plus the fact that DBOBE said the following on the topic of executive control:

Not owning anything is fine. Guilds could just home base in a system/station. That would be fine. But to achieve that kind of interactivity between players there has got to be a mechanic that allows large groups of players to both communicate and play together. If FD takes some notes from wow and starts Letting raid groups form for special Missions or even deadlier combat zones that would be cool. But in wow 75% of the time you didn't raid unless you were in a Guild. Making a communication hub in stations (or in a module) where people could talk to each other would go a long way. Expanding wings would also help.

 

[MarcusKross]

Alright.

I guess it is once again time to chime in and clear some points presented here.

First and foremost i want to say that i am all in favor for social tools and fleet/group/guild/crew whatever you want to call it mechanics because i believe it will enrich the environment for not only for groups of people who likes to tackle the game in cooperative manner but also adds a much needed and demanded QoL improvements for most of the playerbase.

I think it is too early to talk and argue over about what the rewards/gains/penalties/losses would be, given the system is non existent so arguments over trying to debunk a single persons opinions on what they would or should be is counterproductive.

Elite can benefit from a baseline in-game interface which lists members of a group. An example of how it would be is a player going to his right hand panel and select view group/fleet/crew/guild or whatever Fdev names it which opens up the interface where you can see the leader/creator of the group and other members, current locations if they are in the same game mode as you and/or other additional useful information. A glorified friends list if you want to call it. Group/Guild tags may come with that, maybe a calendar where you can pin and name an event etc. Look we don't need to rediscover the basics of this since this is in every MMO out there in one form an other.

Groups of people in any size can benefit from this to organize their play sessions, a fleet beacon which is basically a gathering spot can help with that. Think of Distant Worlds Expedition or Colonia for example.

 

[Sandmann]

Personally I think the way it is now is very effective at preventing large fleets from dominating the game. Thankfully no-one at fdev seems to feel that needs to change. It's just not that sort of game - and the fact that the topic was brought up by someone using an eve avatar didn't escape me.

 

[CMDR Aengus]

To answer you earlier question it is not about rewarding every commander who pass though your systems it is about rewarding commanders who put the time and resources needed to manage the PMF and keep it in a positive state like a boom state

Interesting. So you're saying I can get discounts on ships and modules at one of your stations, when I run missions or sell exploration data or trade or bring rares or anything else for that matter that makes money for your faction... And get favourable permission free docking rights...

But I don't have to be a member of your EDF gang?

 

[DragoonKnight]

Nothing I have suggested is gated from anyone. No one is stopping anyone from starting or joining a fleet. And yes being rewarded for all the hard work we put into our PMF would be appreciated. And I will say that if you are registered on INARA and have joined a fleet on that site I would count you as a supporter of having fleet mechanics if you registered on INARA and have not joined a fleet and just use it for the useful information that the site has I will give you that one.
So far on this thread I have not seen any reasonable comment on why proper fleet mechanics should not be in game. And I have not seen any reasonable comments on how proper fleet mechanics gates solo players out of anything.

All I have bought to the table is that proper fleet mechanics and meaningful interaction with our PMF's is lacking in elite dangerous and I feel if it was introduced into the game it would give the game a broader appeal to a larger audience. And really what is wrong with that.

Not everyone can start a fleet, since a fleet obviously can not be composed of 1 CMDR. That is why I am against any features that would primarily benefit the fleet leadership. I have seen how unbalanced it can be in other games.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

To answer you earlier question it is not about rewarding every commander who pass though your systems it is about rewarding commanders who put the time and resources needed to manage the PMF and keep it in a positive state like a boom state

You seem to have this strange idea that only players in PMFs spend tme and resources managing the BGS for the benefit of their chosen minor faction. I've taken control of stations, flipped systems, expanded my adopted faction into other systems, ALL BY MYSELF - and so have countless other players, both alone, amongst friends and in PMFs. Why do you think you're special and hence deserve special rewards? Because you've convinced a group of other players to call you the Grand High Space Walrus, or whatever?


If you want to argue that players should be able to 'pledge' to minor factions, and that reputation with that minor faction has impact beyond simply access to 'better' missions, then I, and I suspect a lot of other players, will support you in that. But 'free stuff because guild' is not a saleable proposition.

 

[CMDR Dumbfries]

There is literally more than enough space for players to own their own systems, stations ,etc. Without it effecting anyone else. The lack of these Fleet/Guild/faction(and oh my god the communication problem) mechanics is where this game really just falls flat despite being a MMO game. Everything in this game is optional semantics aside nothing I do is going to affect you. You don't ever have to set foot in a player owned bubble which could be all the way on the other side of the galaxy.

I was going to post something similar but you beat me to it. I don't understand how this game is marketed as an MMO, but has almost zero in-game tools which allow players to organise. If not for wings, there would be nothing.

 

[Sunsol]

I was going to post something similar but you beat me to it. I don't understand how this game is marketed as an MMO, but has almost zero in-game tools which allow players to organise. If not for wings, there would be nothing.

It's not even like we're asking for a lot. I just want to play with people and have a meaningful experience in this game. The game is so impersonal it feels like it's driving you away. This has nothing to do with the way I play or my imagination. Them's the facts. Honestly if it wasn't for multicrew and legs I couldn't even play. My whole goal has been to get a big ship and some money so that I can treat my friends. Who happen to not like flying in this game. Which who could blame them flying is boring. (Super cruise and jumps.)

 

[the100thmonkey]

One of the problems with having a fleet-management tool in the hands of particular members of a group is that it presupposes a hierarchical structure (or a division of labour) that is inherently unstable. I've been around clans long enough to know that drama happens eventually. Additionally, some groups, particularly small wings of players but also larger organisations, might not even have that kind of structure. While I appreciate that your group might be organised that way, not all are. I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm suggesting that FD would need to be very careful with their implementation as organisational structure begets behaviour.

Fleet missions are problematic, in that they would need to scale with the size of the fleet. Right now, the game seems to be balanced around small groups of a wing or two in size. How the missions are generated would be the primary concern, as forcing some gameplay opportunities behind a clanwall would, I suspect, be a rather unpopular design choice. Moreover, the colonisation effort currently underway seems to be a manual intervention from the developers. In other words, it's not colonisation through the BGS; it's colonisation by community goal.

That said, better comms tools would be popular, I think - it seems that players often ask for them. I'd very much like to be able to pledge to a minor faction. Other things like putting outfitting behind minor faction reputation would offer deeper player investment in minor factions too, and serve as a suitable gateway into the BGS for players.

 

[Jaiotu]

The game needs to not only cater to Lone Wolf Commanders out there doing there own thing. It also needs to cater to those of us who actually enjoy the social interaction of playing in small, medium or large groups.

Would it be better if we didn't call it "Fleet Mechanics" and called it "Social Tools" instead? That sounds friendlier, right?

"Minor Faction Tags" would be a HUGE improvement in gameplay for a lot of players. They don't even have to be visible to the rest of the world (although I'd gladly and proudly fly an EDF tag).

What would "Minor Faction Tags" give us? Well ... it lets Frontier Developments track what different player groups are doing in the game. It would streamline things like the current Colonia initiative to build a new bubble around Jaques. Instead of having the community vote to see who gets a colony site (that will turn into a popularity contest) Frontier could track the number of players associated with a specific faction that are actually out there making an effort.

Opting in for a type of group 'mail' that would allow me to leave important messages for my friends would also be awesome, but not necessary. I don't think we really need a ton of new features added to the game that are already implemented by good third-party tools (i.e. Teamspeak, Discord).

I'll give you specifics of how I'd like to see Minor Faction Tags implemented:

1. Player begins doing missions for/trading with/selling exploration data to a minor faction.
2. Once Player is "allied" with the minor faction player can visit the "contacts" menu in one of the Faction's starports and "pledge" to the faction.
3. If player drops below Allied or becomes Wanted by the minor faction they lose the tag until the they clear their criminal status and/or once again raise their reputation back to Allied.
4. Allied status alone and not carrying a minor faction tag should unlock faction rewards in the form of reduced prices in the shipyard and outfitting in that faction's starports.
5. We don't necessarily need the faction tag to be visible to every player but two players that are pledged to the same minor faction should appear 'green' in each other's HUDs.

I understand that many Lone Wolf commanders out there have no interest in this kind of thing and may actually be opposed to it. In previous Elite games we were ALL Lone Wolfs but we're multiplayer now. Don't force ALL of us to play as Lone Wolfs and we won't force you do join a PMF, okay?

 

[Sunsol]

One of the problems with having a fleet-management tool in the hands of particular members of a group is that it presupposes a hierarchical structure (or a division of labour) that is inherently unstable. I've been around clans long enough to know that drama happens eventually. Additionally, some groups, particularly small wings of players but also larger organisations, might not even have that kind of structure. While I appreciate that your group might be organised that way, not all are. I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm suggesting that FD would need to be very careful with their implementation as organisational structure begets behaviour.

Fleet missions are problematic, in that they would need to scale with the size of the fleet. Right now, the game seems to be balanced around small groups of a wing or two in size. How the missions are generated would be the primary concern, as forcing some gameplay opportunities behind a clanwall would, I suspect, be a rather unpopular design choice. Moreover, the colonisation effort currently underway seems to be a manual intervention from the developers. In other words, it's not colonisation through the BGS; it's colonisation by community goal.

That said, better comms tools would be popular, I think - it seems that players often ask for them. I'd very much like to be able to pledge to a minor faction. Other things like putting outfitting behind minor faction reputation would offer deeper player investment in minor factions too, and serve as a suitable gateway into the BGS for players.

Good points here. Could counter act the hierarchy by having players join(or not) a small faction with rank benefits. And some faction customization.

Raids/Fleet Missions would be cool something to work for/towards would be a reason to gear up

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The game needs to not only cater to Lone Wolf Commanders out there doing there own thing. It also needs to cater to those of us who actually enjoy the social interaction of playing in small, medium or large groups.

Would it be better if we didn't call it "Fleet Mechanics" and called it "Social Tools" instead? That sounds friendlier, right?

"Minor Faction Tags" would be a HUGE improvement in gameplay for a lot of players. They don't even have to be visible to the rest of the world (although I'd gladly and proudly fly an EDF tag).

What would "Minor Faction Tags" give us? Well ... it lets Frontier Developments track what different player groups are doing in the game. It would streamline things like the current Colonia initiative to build a new bubble around Jaques. Instead of having the community vote to see who gets a colony site (that will turn into a popularity contest) Frontier could track the number of players associated with a specific faction that are actually out there making an effort.

Opting in for a type of group 'mail' that would allow me to leave important messages for my friends would also be awesome, but not necessary. I don't think we really need a ton of new features added to the game that are already implemented by good third-party tools (i.e. Teamspeak, Discord).

I'll give you specifics of how I'd like to see Minor Faction Tags implemented:

1. Player begins doing missions for/trading with/selling exploration data to a minor faction.
2. Once Player is "allied" with the minor faction player can visit the "contacts" menu in one of the Faction's starports and "pledge" to the faction.
3. If player drops below Allied or becomes Wanted by the minor faction they lose the tag until the they clear their criminal status and/or once again raise their reputation of Allied.
4. Allied status alone and not carrying a minor faction tag should unlock faction rewards in the form of reduced prices in the shipyard and outfitting in that faction's starports.
5. We don't necessarily need the faction tag to be visible to every player but two players that are pledged to the same minor faction should appear 'green' in each other's HUDs.

I understand that many Lone Wolf commanders out there have no interest in this kind of thing and may actually be opposed to it. In previous Elite games we were ALL Lone Wolfs but we're multiplayer now. Don't force ALL of us to play as Lone Wolfs and we won't force you do join a PMF, okay?

Truth.

 

[Sandmann]

It's not even like we're asking for a lot.

Your "not much" would actually be a complete change in the way the game is played, the introduction of a mechanism that would dominate any individual player, and would represent a complete 180° backflip on everything that fdev have ever said about the game and any premise upon which the majority of us who do NOT want this bought the game... all so you can have the same game you already have in eve.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Your "not much" would actually be a complete change in the way the game is played, the introduction of a mechanism that would dominate any individual player, and would represent a complete 180° backflip on everything that fdev have ever said about the game and any premise upon which the majority of us who do NOT want this bought the game... all so you can have the same game you already have in eve.

That's a rather exaggerated statement.

My reading of the gist of Viktore's position is that this kind of gameplay happens already (incontrovertibly true) and that some in-game tools would be useful for facilitating it.

I don't think a complete rebalance of gameplay mechanics around massive packs of baying guildies is being asked for here, at least neither consciously nor covertly.

 

[Sandmann]

That's a rather exaggerated statement.

My reading of the gist of Viktore's position is that this kind of gameplay happens already (incontrovertibly true) and that some in-game tools would be useful for facilitating it.

I don't think a complete rebalance of gameplay mechanics around massive packs of baying guildies is being asked for here, at least neither consciously nor covertly.

It's an exageration? How exactly? You don't think large fleets will impact the gameplay of individuals? Or do you not think it's against what fdev have said over and over that they want?

If anything, you'll find I understated the case.

 

[Jaiotu]

That's a rather exaggerated statement.

My reading of the gist of Viktore's position is that this kind of gameplay happens already (incontrovertibly true) and that some in-game tools would be useful for facilitating it.

I don't think a complete rebalance of gameplay mechanics around massive packs of baying guildies is being asked for here, at least neither consciously nor covertly.

There are a lot of player groups that exist in the game that already have either positive or negative reputations. Giving people the option of displaying a Minor Faction tag next to their CMDR name might actually bring more people back into open as it gives you extra time to react when you see another player. If I see anothe player and they've got "Fuel Rats" listed next to their name I know I'm pretty safe. If, on the other hand, I see a Commander flying for "The Smiling Dog Crew" that gives me the extra time I need to high wake out of there before he can get into position to interdict me.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It's an exageration? How exactly? You don't think large fleets will impact the gameplay of individuals? Or do you not think it's against what fdev have said over and over that they want?

If anything, you'll find I understated the case.

We already have large fleets in-game. Ghost Squadron is HUGE. The Earth Defense Fleet isn't tiny either. The only way to prevent large fleets from impacting gameplay of individuals is to provide an offline mode or force us all into Solo but even Solo doesn't prevent groups of players from organizing large-scale covert actions that effect other people's gameplay (UA bombing as an example).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Once again the topic of proper fleet mechanics has been brought up. I feel this topic is never going to go away till we have a definitive answer from FDev.

Well, it won't go away while you keep making threads about it.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...to-elite-let-s-talk-about-what-is-needed-next
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/242275-Controversial-Gameplay-Mechanics
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/236057-In-game-fleet-management-tools

Not aware of any other user on this forum that is so persistent on the topic of fleet mechanics.

I think you do misunderstand what some people are telling you though. Its not that everyone doesn't want some of the features you want. Nor that FD do not want some of the features at some point. What many people do not want though is a step towards what you might view as being a "proper" MMO, especially one more like EvE. For those who want that style of game there is another game, called EvE surprisingly enough.

So sure, yeah, Wing mechanics could be expanded, more ease of group communications in game, perhaps some sort of group maangement features. Those sort of things. Maybe ways of aligning together. But FD have been pretty clear, this game will not become EvE in cockpits.

 

[Sandmann]

We already have large fleets in-game. Ghost Squadron is HUGE. The Earth Defense Fleet isn't tiny either. The only way to prevent large fleets from impacting gameplay of individuals is to provide an offline mode or force us all into Solo but even Solo doesn't prevent groups of players from organizing large-scale covert actions that effect other people's gameplay (UA bombing as an example).

Either I don't understand what "fleet mechanics" means, or you're wrong and you have social groups. You can't currently move and act as a fleet, other than bgs actions, ua bombing, etc. If that's all you want, you don't need any changes.

 

[Mohrgan]

What I see as the unresolved issues around the Corp/Cult/Fleet concept is the depth to which the leaders/members would be able to control assets. I have never heard any arguments against the Comm's, Tags, and connectivity features often mentioned in these threads. I am in favor of the vanity and cosmetic changes that a Player Faction could bring to the game. When opposition is mounted, it's against player/group/leader control of the game environment.

One of the big problems with this conversation is something like 'Feature Creep', right in the conversation. As a consensus is pseudo-agreed, within the conversation, that certain aspects could/should be added, another feature is tossed on the pile, upsetting the consensus. If we as a whole campaigned for the additions we can agree on, rather than squabble over those we don't we might be able to attract FD's attention.

On one point we can be sure, FD is not going to scrap the Faction system we have now, for a run of the mill Corp. feature seen all over the interwebs. We have to offer suggestions that grows the current system to meet our needs, and fits in the Elite galaxy.

I'm all for improving the connections between like minded players but, I can do with out the Banks, Profit Sharing, Group Only Content, and Ownership devices often suggested by those that post here.

 

[Sandmann]

What I see as the unresolved issues around the Corp/Cult/Fleet concept is the depth to which the leaders/members would be able to control assets. I have never heard any arguments against the Comm's, Tags, and connectivity features often mentioned in these threads. I am in favor of the vanity and cosmetic changes that a Player Faction could bring to the game. When opposition is mounted, it's against player/group/leader control of the game environment.

One of the big problems with this conversation is something like 'Feature Creep', right in the conversation. As a consensus is pseudo-agreed, within the conversation, that certain aspects could/should be added, another feature is tossed on the pile, upsetting the consensus. If we as a whole campaigned for the additions we can agree on, rather than squabble over those we don't we might be able to attract FD's attention.

On one point we can be sure, FD is not going to scrap the Faction system we have now, for a run of the mill Corp. feature seen all over the interwebs. We have to offer suggestions that grows the current system to meet our needs, and fits in the Elite galaxy.

I'm all for improving the connections between like minded players but, I can do with out the Banks, Profit Sharing, Group Only Content, and Ownership devices often suggested by those that post here.

Well said. Social tools are fine. So are cosmetic ones. The problem is more about "feature creep"... once you allow in guilds, then it's a lot easier to push for more and more features that end.up changing ED into Eve or Wow. Comms and organisation stuff CAN be done just as easily (and arguable better) with external tools than by having a half       intergration, so there's very little reason to include something that takes us down an undesired path if allowed.