Vanguards / Squadron rework screencaps from stream......

[Sylow]

Indeed. It's a pointless and arbitrary way to restrict it. What if you have a really strong friends group of 8 players? You still have to try to get randoms to join just to hit the limit.

I imagine it will be 'restricted' in having a much higher cost/upkeep relative to the regular carriers, which would be completely fair, and allow players to make their own choice as to whether it is worth the hassle. Maybe greater penalties on jumping it around/fuelling it, that sort of stuff.

Whatever. I just find that the last carriers were already first "squadron carrier". Now one for everybody. What's the point of something which again would be called "squadron carrier", if it again would in the end be one for everybody?

Would the point merely be to have more grind? While we, as mentioned, have mostly squadron of one or two people? This carrier might be one lever to actually make squadron matter. But apparently, that is bad?

 

[sinkarma]

can't wait to see reports of new players joining squadrons and the managers yeeting cutters at them and they quit elite 1 week later.
"But why they leave?! we gave them cutter! they didn't even need to grind rank this time! all they neeed to do now is just haul cargo for my- I mean... 'our' colonisation!"

Happy to hear the ships won't be allowed to have engineering. Good choice.
I am a solo player but no worth to me. I will say its a good thing to see them adjusting and updating things still. Less stagnation for elite dangerous!
And hopefully people use the ship bank feature for good and help newbie players and don't just force them to quit in boredom by locking them in FDLs with 890009073127 shield boosters and shieldless cutters.

 

[alexzk]

Indeed. It's a pointless and arbitrary way to restrict it. What if you have a really strong friends group of 8 players? You still have to try to get randoms to join just to hit the limit.

I imagine it will be 'restricted' in having a much higher cost/upkeep relative to the regular carriers, which would be completely fair, and allow players to make their own choice as to whether it is worth the hassle. Maybe greater penalties on jumping it around/fuelling it, that sort of stuff.

That's why I doubt it will work.
It reassembles cooperative games, like LA2 : guild buffs, guild hall, guild bank. In La2 you paid for it as part of community, because 99% of the game required other players. For example, guild hall gave you cheap escape from PVP.
In Elite, 99.9% is solo. So why would I want to pay extra weekly for ability to give somebody the ship? If I need that - we could use our personal carriers. Same for buf, 1 for many ? I would gladly change it for me when I need.
But will see final thing.

 

[Mr Lindsay]

Whatever. I just find that the last carriers were already first "squadron carrier". Now one for everybody. What's the point of something which again would be called "squadron carrier", if it again would in the end be one for everybody?

Would the point merely be to have more grind? While we, as mentioned, have mostly squadron of one or two people? This carrier might be one lever to actually make squadron matter. But apparently, that is bad?

Encouraging players to work together isn't bad. Arbitrarily restricting it to 10 players would be bad.

You miss that the reverse incentive also applies. It would also incentivise Squadrons to just get to 10 players and then stop, so that larger player groups can have a large number of these carriers rather than all work together in one squadron of hundreds of players with one flagship.

Also, what happens if a group of 11 has a couple of players that invest a bunch of resources into the carrier... and then a couple of others drop out by choice, get kicked for being abusive, or go 'inactive' by your metric. Do they lose the carrier?
That might encourage people to keep other players engaged/active, but it also encourages them to tolerate TKing and other abusive behaviour, for fear of losing the carrier if they kick too many people.

 

[tomalus]

Hey sir, here is a cutter. Now start hauling for my colonization project kid.

The thingies shown look promising.

 

[Jeebs]

Perks!

View attachment 430667

So, these perks... this will see every single player that has no interest in playing in a group start their own 1-man squadron just to get access to them. Unless they're gated behind having a certain number of people in your squadron, but that would be a mistake. Lots of people have no interest in playing in a group, so if it gets gated behind being a group that's essentially saying "screw you" to anyone who would rather play on their own.

 

[alexzk]

You could always join a squadron and not interact with anyone.

Perk is per all people. What if I want another one than everybody use this morning ?

 

[Sylow]

Encouraging players to work together isn't bad. Arbitrarily restricting it to 10 players would be bad.

You miss that the reverse incentive also applies. It would also incentivise Squadrons to just get to 10 players and then stop, so that larger player groups can have a large number of these carriers rather than all work together in one squadron of hundreds of players with one flagship.

Also, what happens if a group of 11 has a couple of players that invest a bunch of resources into the carrier... and then a couple of others drop out by choice, get kicked for being abusive, or go 'inactive' by your metric. Do they lose the carrier?
That might encourage people to keep other players engaged/active, but it also encourages them to tolerate TKing and other abusive behaviour, for fear of losing the carrier if they kick too many people.

No solution is perfect. But merely "more grind" also is not the way to go. For sure, we don't need just an other "squadron of one, but bigger" carrier. A lot of what they presented here is aimed at at least promoting more cooperative play. And i also dare to ask: what would you need a bigger carrier than the one available for, except cooperative activities? Especially the mentioned features, providing other players with ships, etc. What use is it, in a squadron of one? So you can provide a ship you already have to yourself? Albeit with no engineering?

So yea. I see why "10 active players" i not the final perfect solution. Already based on how you define "active". But i also think that merely "more grind" is not the answer.

And in the end, i personally try to be positive. Instead of thinking that all the game is played solo, so the new squadron-oriented feature should actually just be squadron in name but actually be solo, i would prefer if they would make the thing an actual squadron tool. And then reinforce that, by introducing more and more cooperation based game loops. A potential start could be, to add more dynamic events in the current Power Play stuff, where it could be beneficial if a whole squadron could deploy quickly. And i am quite sure, some people could come up with a number of other good ideas.

 

[alexzk]

What use is it, in a squadron of one?

70000t + 25000t in personal carrier. It makes middle-range colonizations pretty comfortable. Like 2000-3000 ly chains. Imagine what 5 people can do, each with 95000t.

 

[Jeebs]

You could always join a squadron and not interact with anyone.

I could, but if the squadron leader is the one that gets to pick the perks for the rest of the squad, what incentive do I have not to just form my own 1-man squad... unless it's restricted to a number of people, at which point we circle back to my original point.

 

[alexzk]

Set up your own squadron, then you have the choice of which perk to use.

Exactly, own squadron of 1 man That is where it's going.

 

[Fizzatron]

They will surely have considered it, and the potential consequences of doing so, and decided not to.

For sure, but I hope they keep considering it. I understand that cosmetics won't follow either due to them being tied to the account, which to me suggests that engineered modules might also be tied to accounts too, which could be a greater obstacle to overcome to make it happen. Though I hope they can find a way.

 

[Mr Lindsay]

That's why I doubt it will work.
It reassembles cooperative games, like LA2 : guild buffs, guild hall, guild bank. In La2 you paid for it as part of community, because 99% of the game required other players. For example, guild hall gave you cheap escape from PVP.
In Elite, 99.9% is solo. So why would I want to pay extra weekly for ability to give somebody the ship? If I need that - we could use our personal carriers. Same for buf, 1 for many ? I would gladly change it for me when I need.
But will see final thing.

I'm not sure that I would bother with it as a mostly Solo player.
If the costs were double the costs for double the capacity, then I might feel like it was worth doing. I had to clear a lot of valuable cargo out of my FC at low prices to make space for Colonisation stuff. It would be good to have a 'base' SC loaded with assorted cargo, and a more active FC loaded with extra Tritium for jumping around and just whatever I need for what I'm doing.
If the cost for an SC was 10x FC, for double the capacity, then I doubt I'd bother, and just sign up to another group instead.

Conversely, I have friends that only play Elite once in a blue moon, so the ship share feature might well be the sort of thing that encourages them to try things out more... but that would be completely useless if I'm just some nobody in a huge squadron of people with no control over the SC or the ship bank.

Essentially there's no "right" way for FDev to do this. There's many different ways to implement, which would all have somewhat different results for different players. As you say, we'll see. I think what we've been shown is all good stuff to be added to the game, and some players will benefit however they apply it.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I could, but if the squadron leader is the one that gets to pick the perks for the rest of the squad, what incentive do I have not to just form my own 1-man squad... unless it's restricted to a number of people, at which point we circle back to my original point.

They could make the strength of the perk in some way related to either the number of people in the squadron or their activity level.

So you can join a 100-person squadron and get a high-value perk (but maybe not one you'll use), or you can form your own squadron and get a low-value perk (but of a type you find useful)

 

[Sylow]

Exactly, own squadron of 1 man That is where it's going.

And then i say: wasted development time. Best immediately scrap it alltogether, and invest the developlemt time into something new.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I saw piracy as an option for a squadron focus. I wonder if this will enable some piracy possibilities?

 

[alexzk]

And then i say: wasted development time. Best immediately scrap it alltogether, and invest the developlemt time into something new.

They can plan extra guild content later which involves many, and this one is just milestone..who knows.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And then i say: wasted development time. Best immediately scrap it alltogether, and invest the developlemt time into something new.

It's far, far too late for that....

 

[Jeebs]

And then i say: wasted development time. Best immediately scrap it alltogether, and invest the developlemt time into something new.

Or just make the perks available to individual players regardless of being in a squadron or not. Even if it's not gated behind having a group of a certain size, I don't see the point in encouraging every player to start their own 1-man squadron to get access to them. That'll just clutter up the squadron listing page for no good reason.

 

[Mr Lindsay]

No solution is perfect. But merely "more grind" also is not the way to go. For sure, we don't need just an other "squadron of one, but bigger" carrier. A lot of what they presented here is aimed at at least promoting more cooperative play. And i also dare to ask: what would you need a bigger carrier than the one available for, except cooperative activities? Especially the mentioned features, providing other players with ships, etc. What use is it, in a squadron of one? So you can provide a ship you already have to yourself? Albeit with no engineering?

So yea. I see why "10 active players" i not the final perfect solution. Already based on how you define "active". But i also think that merely "more grind" is not the answer.

And in the end, i personally try to be positive. Instead of thinking that all the game is played solo, so the new squadron-oriented feature should actually just be squadron in name but actually be solo, i would prefer if they would make the thing an actual squadron tool. And then reinforce that, by introducing more and more cooperation based game loops. A potential start could be, to add more dynamic events in the current Power Play stuff, where it could be beneficial if a whole squadron could deploy quickly. And i am quite sure, some people could come up with a number of other good ideas.

I've essentially already answered this in my previous post, but for clarity...

Yes, I as a Solo player could use a bigger carrier than an FC. I had to clear out stored cargo to make space with the Colonisation update because I didn't have room.

By your logic, the minimum number for an SC should then be 2 players, because that's how many would be required to take full advantage of the bank feature.

For players that are storing up Billions of credits "more grind" isn't a thing. We're already "grinding" (playing the game) more than the game requires. What we are looking for is more things to spend it on.