It would be equally possible to be added via the "engineering" space magic route, yes, but they're wanting a feature for squadrons to use so it's here instead.
Vanguards / Squadron rework screencaps from stream......
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
What happens if a squadron leader can no longer play due to sudden emergency and is unable to hand over to another member? Is there a way of electing a new leader?
It would be a shame if the results other members' hard work were written off or made inaccessible. And we know that sadly, some of us become unable to play, some even die in the real world. When it's only your own assets to worry about, it isn't such a concern.
It would be a shame if the results other members' hard work were written off or made inaccessible. And we know that sadly, some of us become unable to play, some even die in the real world. When it's only your own assets to worry about, it isn't such a concern.
To me that reads as a very good reason to allow engineered modules to be shared with the Squadron, if technically feasible. It's not that far off the same reason as to why the jump-start ships work in a similar way... wait... <dons tinfoil hat>
There can be a football pitch and a golf course in the same town. I don't think your analogy applies here, though that's not to say I don't understand your point. When there are multiple things to do I guess it could look like favoritism by the devs when they promote this over that but I think it's fair to say that by doing so they're advertising for people who are into that sort of thing to engage with it, which is hard cheese for those who aren't. In such case, keep on playing how you play. Think of all of those who are 99% out in the black happily ignoring all CGs etc.
That is "exit" button granted for me
I don't want to sponsor anybody who writes in the game chat 2 times per year.
This idea that things shouldn't "leak" out is the opposite of a problem. When features arent fully integrated into the game and instead their own little self contained bubbles they feel less than half baked.
Lasers build + npc pilot/fighter + some repair drones. You can do HI CZs all the day long without docking. If you had shield boosters in the build, then you will need to dock to recharge though.
That's the most fun for me in all games - do solo group content.
Fair, maybe Frontier could have a brainstorming session and come up with a few lines to explain it away then. That way, it's not just join a squadron and watch the galaxy bend to our will depending on what the Squadron leader's deified powers grant at their whim.
When only a fraction of the player base are even remotely into PvP, Squadrons wont be centred around that.True enough. First creating activities which require multiplayer, then supporting them better would probably have been better. But that's never how FD does things. Also mind that in the past, stuff which was first designed to be done by several people was nerfed. And people were reasoning that multiplayer was not supported well, so why should there be multiplayer content and not everything be solo-able?
Chicken and egg, i guess.
They finally, after all these years, look at squadrons again. The whole ranking stuff they put in there is just as ridiculous now as it originally was. I still have no idea, who of them thinks that it is a good idea, but it might also just be that they are afraid of simply disposing of it, believing that there will be actually one or two players who love it and would go ballistic if it was removed.
Yet finally returning to squadrons and thus to the multiplayer aspect of the game after oh so many years might, just might, give somebody pause and make them ponder if they should make the multiplayer system actually for many players, instead of many squadrons of one. And perhaps even could be an urgently needed trigger to finally also put some multiplayer oriented content into the game.
I know that the chances for that are not too great. But if there's just a chance for that, we should try. This is what the game so badly is lacking, after all.
Did all of them. Did not go the "i am afraid of people, have to do it all alone" route, but actually did them with other players. Fine enough. And yea, in ESO there also is content which, while designed for 12 people (not 8... the only 8 people content there is in PvP), can be done by smaller groups. Some even, in the non-veteran version, be done by dedicated solo players. Kudos to them, if they can pull it off. That's often a tough feat.
So what you described, that you manage to even kill that first boss solo means that you had a good sustain and survivability setup. (That boss does not have an enrage mechanic in normal mode, so time is no issue. But your setup has to be solid and you have to keep well focused throughout the fight. ) It's admirable that you were able to pull that off. Many players could never to that.
But after all this admiration, i still wonder if it would be right to demand that some content, which requires several players, should not be implemented because it would not suit your solo playstyle? Is that really the way you want to go? All the game, without exception, has to be designed just for you, everybody who might occasionally like another playstyle be damned?
You already have your one-person-squadron carrier. You have all the content, which all was cut down to be done solo. I guess just accepting a tiny bit of content in the game, which is not designed to be done by you and you alone is not acceptable?
I rather say: take pride that you can do very hard stuff. But please also accept that some players would be extremely happy if we also in FD, finally, after so many years of it being hinted at and being promided, then again being nerfed down to be soloable. I have no idea, if we would ever get that. But i would so much welcome it.
Scenarios where different things have to be done at different places are a good way to require multiplayer activity. Just like it's one of the reasons why military actions usually are done by more than one person: no matter how skilled a person it, he might be unable to do all required tasks at the same time. Now looking at some of the advertising videos FD made, which very much advertised combined arms combat, etc... giving us activities which would actually use and encourage such combined arms activities, instead of being all of us playing guys which Chuck Norris can only stare at in awe and admiration, then cry in envy, would be well overdue.
And yes, merely a "squadron carrier which is actually to be used by a squadron" instead of being just again for a solo player is not all we need. It can merely be a first step. Followed by adding more stuff which requires cooperative play. But it is one step which should be taken, instead of missing it and slam head first into the ground again, like so many other upgrades did in this regard.
Started already. Page one. Some were starting writing these demands even before you were done uploading this thread...
So... no good solution, we better give one to every player for free?
As ESO already was mentioned in this thread and i am replying to an ESO comment in this set of replies, i simply fall back to that. I still actively play that. I am in several guilds of different size. It has just such a system, where you need a certain number of players to have guild features active. Guild bank, guild tabard, stuff like that. Have 10 players or no access to those features.
And yes, there always were some people who had a guild as extra bank space. But they are a rarity. Despite it being possible to be in five guilds at the same time, so giving up one guild slot for more storage space is a comparatively lower price to pay, than giving up your only squadron slot for this. And yes, when base game accounts went free on the epic store, there was a temporary increase in such guilds.
The important part is: temporary. I've heard of more than one person reporting, that an unused account, created during a free to play event, was simply removed after several months. Resulting in the guild falling back to not having the mentioned features any more. Some people then bought 9 extra accounts... alas. Money for the developer. Most simply dropped that stuff. Keep in mind, i just checked: i can get the base game at the moment for €4.99. Yet people generally are not dropping piles of money on it, to have their guilds-of-one.
Thus, why should ED not go for something like the 10 ->active<- players requirement. Rules for what active could be as complex as:
- Has to have logged in and played (includes some measurable activity, not sitting on the landing pad) for at least an hour of total playtime within a certain time interval.
- The time interval might depend on financial investment, too. So...
- Free to play accounts have to be that active every week.
- Once an account has any money spending associated to it (even if it is just a small ARX package), this in increased by a month.
- An account holding Odyssey gets the time interval increased by 3 months.
- Optional: every older expansion connected to the game, which was paid for and not handed out for free adds another month.
Of course, as any other system, this can be gamed. Somebody can have 9 unpaid extra accounts and spend an hour of active in playing on each of them every week. But if somebody goes for that lengh and time investment... alas, i guess he shall have it. Somebody can also spend money on 9 additional accounts to reduce the time investment necessary to maintain that. In that case, hey... money for the developer.
Sure, his effort seems to defeat the system. But if some oddball really want to drop plenty of time and money on having his solo-squadron carrier, he may as well. While for almost all players, the system will work just as designed. In my eyes, it would be a viable path to pursue.
And yes, again: the carrier itself is merely one small part in the whole picture for me. But if FD finally, after all that time, looks at squadrons and thus multiplayer content again, i would very much appreciate if they finally also include multiplayer in their multiplayer design. Weird as that might sound for people working at FD...
ED has many modes (i hear the Eagles warming up), Solo and PG PVE are extremely popular, i will guess that in no way will any new stuff jeopardise any of those play styles, they didn't do it when they had the opportunity in PP2, they wont do it now.
The new content and mega carrier I'm sure will be aimed at group purchase/upkeep but still achievable by a small team (im hoping).
ED remains a Solo game with the opportunity to loin others in a PG or Open.
O7
I agree. Neither am i. Did i somewhere, anywhere, in my posting give the impression that i want to push this thing into a PvP direction? My mere idea is that a multiplayer feature, with multiplayer in the name, might actually, very surprisingly, not be all centered about solo play, but actually be oriented towards multi player activities.
And here, nothing i wrote in any way takes away from all the solo-activities we already have. I might have a comprehension problem here. Perhaps "Squadrons" is the term some Airforce uses for a single plane. Perhaps some army uses the term for one single infantryman, taking on an army rambo-style. Maybe i am confused. But according to my understanding the term is used to describe a combat unit, consisting several humans, be it fighter planes or marines. Thus i also understand squadrons in game as a multiplayer feature. And i would a very welcome chance, if a feature where the name implies the cooperation of several people, would be designed to be used by several people. But alas, i guess this is too much to ask for.
And yea... this is where we collide. ED does not remain a solo game. It in the run of time, by people wining and complaining, managed to get anything which might have required a wing to be nerfed, till it was soloable. Not that the multiplayer content ever was that much refined to be multiplayer only. I bit above, i also have described how the absence of stuff actually needing cooperative play, but rather being all solo with maybe once a while seeing somebody in the same instance killed the game for many friends of me.
I see a lot of potential that finally, when a new patch goes into the multiplayer aspect, the game could also start catering towards cooperative players again. That's nothing about PvP, merely cooperative gameplay. But yea. I understand the notion. Better change nothing, better limit everything to those who want to permanently play solo, and absolutely never give in to anything which could potentially accomodate other players.
Last edited:
It is multiplayer. BGS (not "play bgs", but code which is called bgs) does multiplayer part here. So yes, traditional WoW-like group and guilds are obsolete. They were added, but ...
Any way, I would welcome any changes which stop "play BGS" god-like manipulations from everybody, so game will work as designed finally.
This thing is designed to give you a feeling "you're not alone", instead it is being manipulated by the players.
Technically... kiiiiind of right. We together, unseen from each other, manipulate values on the 15th position after the decimal point. That gives me the utter feeling of cooperative gameplay... not.
If this is all "multiplayer" the game shall have, then open and PG should be deleted. The wings and multicrew features have to immediately be removed. Anything with the name "squadron" in them should be deleted. Not only the interface, but also strange carriers and nothing new of that name shall ever be implemented. Perfection!
Edit: sorry, this time i failed the reading check on the second line.
Last edited:
I'm ok with it
but then I will need "ignore pvp" flag in addition as solo/pg is a way to never meet others in person.As just edited in above: i missunderstood your second line. But you also missed something in your reply. I said to eliminate Open and PG. So everybody would be solo, nothing else.I'm ok with it
And yea. I get it that we play differently. Or rather, by now play quite the same way, but i would so much like to have the option to both play the solo way at some time, and have real cooperative gameplay, which rewards coordination and flying together, instead of kind of merely not completely preventing it. (Or when speaking of multicrew: severely punishing it. )
Also, i don't mind that some people play the BGS game. If they do enjoy that, fine for me. It's their way of playing. It does not hurt my way of playing... it might change the scenery a bit, by determining in which system i can now pursue my activities and where i should not do that, but that's it. I don't have to play that game. (That's what i missunderstood above, i thought you kind of indicated that we should all focus on that. As said: reading failure. Sorry. ) Thus i find it fine to be there. If it's fun for some part of the playerbase, it's great to have it. I prefer other aspects of the game. But i would very much appreciate if those also finally would get some support again.
Yes, but "BGS code" makes all 1-to-1 interactions optional. So you should not judge or blindly copy things from "classic WoW" multiplayer.
And as we can see now, they're going to copy classical setup: guild hall, perks, guild bank. In this game it is optimal to have such a thing per player. Imagine what 10 guild carriers could do when work together as 1 ?
Eilte's greatest enemy is itself.
The game is what it is. I've bought copies for just about everyone I know. They gave up after a month, at the longest. Then they bought Baldur's Gate...
The New And Improved Squadrons will benefit existing players, not draw more in, for the most part.
The game is what it is. I've bought copies for just about everyone I know. They gave up after a month, at the longest. Then they bought Baldur's Gate...
The New And Improved Squadrons will benefit existing players, not draw more in, for the most part.
Same, once I did Epic where I claimed free Elite. It was not used for years, than I gifted to the friend. He sit in my Anaconda in multicrew...and didn't login 2 years any more
I think it helps the sales pitch when the squadron functions are more fleshed out. I've told people about the game and they ask if there's clans or guilds, and then you go "uh sort of" and they just lose interest. Elite having the base functionality people expect out the box does help it in the long run
Already in progress.
If it merely is a bigger carrier and a bit of interface rework: yes.
But i know a number of people who enjoyed the game for a while. But found playing together to be severely lacking. So our gaming evenings turned towards other games, as already mentioned. Most frequent picks are Deep Rock Galactic, Helldivers 2 and recently Mechwarrior 5: Mercenaries again. All of them a bit more relaxed and cooperative.
Proper support of cooperative gameplay could very likely make them return and potentially buy Odyssey. At the very least it would give me the chance to advertise ED to my friends again. If it would stick, would of course depend on the quality of the new stuff.
So... quality of the new stuff. Based on FDs history... my sarcastic side does say, it's hopeless... but i try not to give in to that...