That I understand, but it's a different claim than your original.
But not a hill worth dying on.
Player Minor Faction
- Thread starter Alikatt
- Start date
But not a hill worth dying on.
What indeed?
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
I see what you did there
I have no idea what are you talking about, dude)
The game assigns you as working for the owning faction of the station where you bought the beacon, "you are expanding faction XYZ".
And that suck big time.
The update description says: "The third faction in a newly colonised system will be the one the System Architect's squadron is aligned to - giving you a direct way to spread BGS factions further outside the bubble."
So your minor faction will be represented in the new system, and can gain “controlling influence” if you choose to help it do so.
Elite Dangerous: Trailblazers – Available Now - Elite Dangerous
Expand the Bubble in the Elite Dangerous: Trailblazers update. With the brand-new System Colonisation mechanic launching into Beta, the power to claim...
There was never anything meant to be "fair" about the BGS and factions.
Factions were simply meant to be background flavour. That players seem to think and treat them like they aren't is their problem, not FDs.
I think BGS offered certain players the ability to choose a style of play that colonization will now either supplement or replace.
I can only speculate but I believe the Vanguard update later this year will also change the dynamic between players, squadrons, factions, BGS and colonization.
This seems even more obvious now when you review Elite Dangerous' decade long development, or lack there of at times, and how colonization treats factions that are now being shotgun blasted across the bubble. I would put money down on a bet on FDev regretting ever allowing PMFs. And FleetCarriers for individual commanders, as opposed only for Squadrons as they were originally intended, while we're at it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If Fleet Carriers had been limited to Squadrons, it's worth remembering that every Squadron starts with only one member - and even while Carriers were still earmarked for Squadrons Frontier confirmed that the Carrier would remain even if there would be only one Squadron member remaining.
.... so Carriers would have been a reason for those who wanted a Carrier not to join someone else's Squadron as they could acquire their own in their personal Squadron.
You confuse how Squadrons ended up as, versus how they were originally presented. They weren't intended as something for individuals. And thus neither would Carriers have been under the original design. Did things turn out that way? No of course not and here we are.
has the verbatim text, seeing as the old Forum Posts aren't archived anywhere available to the public.
You don't get.
1 person can create the Squadron, and even if it don't - you can always ask "help me to create a squadron" as other games do.
So If I want a personal carrier which is per-squadron, than I have to make own squadron out of 1 person and buy the carrier. Which blocks me from being part of another squadron.
And it would happen, TESO is full of fake guilds to have own guild bank. Even requirement to have 10 people to unlock does not help, they just lure newbies, some of them stop playing, and condition 10+ people to unlock is met.
Dare i say... you could fix this by requiring a quorum... forming a Squadron involves sending out an initial set of inviteds, and once all are accepted, the sqn forms.
I don't want that, but it's plausible.
It couldn't. In SWTOR there are a lot of "need 3 persons to create the guild". 4 persons create, than 3 quit.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In what way? Someone had to create a Squadron (otherwise there would not be any to join) then the someone who created the Squadron would need to admit new members to that Squadron, or not as the case may be. In the same way that each player can create Private Group and choose to, or choose not to, admit other players.
Here's Adam's thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/squad-goals.425830/
Yeah, but also easy enough to go "you're below the minimum amount, you'll be disbanded in a week unless x"... which can be games itself... but would that be worth it at that point?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How large would that quorum have needed to be to stop a determined player accruing as many free Epic accounts to satisfy any arbitrary numerical requirement? Even after the Epic giveaway one can from time to time pick up new altCMDR(s) for about £5 each.