Which means it's not mandatory since people play the game in ways that aren't optimal the majority of the time.
Last edited:
Vanguards for people not in squadrons
- Thread starter Jaffz
- Start date
And damn if they add anything to the game, which is not designed especially for you, but actually might be of interest for other players. Utterly unacceptable.
Yes, with that update: wing beacon, wing invite, multi-crew are all disabled, as well as wing missions.
All chats are disabled as well.
More over Lone Rangers' ships will not be allowed to refuel/repair with someone's else limpets, neither to dock at someone's else fleet carriers or colonies.
You said all the essentials: you do not like it. But for a small percentage gain, you will let this dictate how you play.
For me, i am looking forward, that this, along with hopefully more support for cooperative gameplay, which they only did not present yet at this time, could revive interest among my friends. We still play online every other week or so, but ED has lost the race, due to how bad the multiplayer support is up to now. Improvements here could do miracles.
The perks, on the other hand, do not interest me at all. For all it is worth, we might even for the fun of it select the CQC perk, then never use that thing at all. And i would not shed a tear, if they decide to drop the perks and focus on other things, which actually make cooperative play easier and more enjoyable... and eliminate all those "Cooperation is punished. Severely!" Mechanics. With multicrew payouts being a prime example: a beginner pilot currently is punished hard, if the owner of the ship has a high combat rank. He takes a -95% (!!!!!) payout reduction, as punishment for flying with me, as i have elite combat rank. Toxic game design.
So really: don't be a donkey, running after a carrot. Don't let a small percentage gain on one aspect dictate how you play. If you don't like a squadron, if you want to play solo, you can. As well as before, Vanguard won't change that at all, according to all we know. You can still play the way you enjoy and won't loose anything. But people who might also like to play differently might actually profit from this. Is this really unacceptable?
I think it would fail on simply how you could implement it. I mean, PP2 is for people who enjoy to somehow coordinate their efforts. Or to coast along, doing just a bit here and there, to get the equipment. That's random static on the results of PP2, won't make a real difference, so it can be ignored.
Now how to add the rest:
A. Every player not in a power automatically deducts from the PP2 results? No need to join even?
B. Everybody going for the "no PP" group at least deducts from the results? Automatically, by doing nothing?
C. The "no PP" group has to do activities to cut down the implemented powers?
Option A and B are purely toxic. PP(1 and 2) were always designed to cater for just part of the playerbase. That was always obvious. Opt in. And the activity numbers and discord channels for them show, that there is a significant number of people enjoying it. So option A and B are clearly the middle finger, telling these people that they are not wanted here and better move to another game. Smart move?
In this case, i want to go through all the players here. Let's look at Exploration, Bounty Hunting, Trading, PvP, Fuel Ratting, Mining, PowerPlay. Let's see how many people and how many hours are spent on them. And anything, which does not attract at least 75% of all players and 75% of the time players spend on it in game will be removed.
Then look at option C. That in a way might, compared to the rest, work. But you will do exactly, what you hate to do: you will have to spend time and effort in the "i hate PP" PowerPlay faction. Success!
I haven’t done all of the existing stuff yet.
Is that a positive recommendation or a negative.
The thing I wanted from a squadron was different looking bookmarks.
Then why are you arguing with a person for who it matters?
If you don't play for objectives, then you offer me and 99% of the playerbase who likely does play for an objective no compromise in your suggestions and certainly no solution.
This isn't the thread for you, telling people to change their mind because you like it that way, isn't a productive feedback to anyone.
OP says the same thing himself in the final paragraph of the comment you are replying to.
Reading one sentence out of four paragraphs and telling people to get out of the thread is not "productive feedback."
I've just had a thought that feels maybe more appropriate to put under a thread with this title, if not in this actual thread given the tone of the OP.
As a 99% Solo player, one thing Squadron Carriers could do for me is that they might get me to more reliably engage with FC trading.
Currently dealing with FCs can be a bit of a flaky affair. Volumes are low, and data in Inara can often be out of date due to infrequent visitation, and stocks are rarely or slowly replenished by the lone Commander operating the FC.
With Squadron Carriers, I expect it will be much easier to find Squadrons that are 'doing business', stocking up with items to higher levels and more regularly, and having more players fly in and out more regularly updating Inara data.
So there's one thing that I, as a mostly Solo player, might gain out of SCs. Even if I never get involved in a Squadron and never own or share in one myself.
As a 99% Solo player, one thing Squadron Carriers could do for me is that they might get me to more reliably engage with FC trading.
Currently dealing with FCs can be a bit of a flaky affair. Volumes are low, and data in Inara can often be out of date due to infrequent visitation, and stocks are rarely or slowly replenished by the lone Commander operating the FC.
With Squadron Carriers, I expect it will be much easier to find Squadrons that are 'doing business', stocking up with items to higher levels and more regularly, and having more players fly in and out more regularly updating Inara data.
So there's one thing that I, as a mostly Solo player, might gain out of SCs. Even if I never get involved in a Squadron and never own or share in one myself.
Just pledge to a power. Do your undermining and cancel the pledge when you're done. You can undermine and just drop the faction when you're doing other stuff which is basically the same result. Just don't push the power into control once you're done removing the control.
Not everything has to be for you.
It's good when a game has variety, and with variety inevitably comes things you're not interested in.
I like the idea of joining a squadron for loners. The last time I was in a squadron was back in 2018, then left (the squadron and the game), took a long break and when I came back a few years after I didn't join any squadron, I'm not interested at the moment, however I'm interested in the Vanguard benefits, for me being in my PP power is enough, I participate very occasionally in the PP Discord and that's it. The only way I would be interested in joining a squadron is that the squadron is aligned with my PP power and speak my language (spanish), such squadron doesn't exist, I can speak English more or less well, but speaking it constantly tires me out. I'll be keeping a close eye on this idea of a squadron for loners.
If the gameplay feature does not appeal to 99% of the players in Solo, it seems kind of pointless to make it?
99% of the players who play solo only are a tiny fraction of the players, and most new players who do join do so to play with people already playing most of the time. Seems very relevant to nurture the social aspect of the game.
I don't do exploration. Doesn't interest me. If they add something for explorers that I have no personal interest in, I still see that as a good thing for the game because it's fleshing out things people enjoy. When they changed exploring years ago and made it more engaging I was happy for it because it improves the game. I don't understand the sentiment of "I personally don't engage with the game this way so it's dumb." Seems very short sighted.
Last edited:
Same thing applies to forum threads, right?
It's not like the OP made any wild criticisms of the update that might provoke rebuttals or debate.
It's just a thread expressing an opinion which, as it turns out, is shared by quite a few other people.
Total squadron membership is probably around 300,000 players, based on the squadron leaderboard data and sampling of squadron sizes.
Active membership (i.e. does something in any 8-week leaderboard season) is harder to estimate, but around a quarter of squadrons are active in any season, so probably about a quarter to a fifth of squadron-aligned players are too (because most squadrons are small)
60-75,000 players is much larger than the interest in Powerplay (a bit over 10,000 a week from in-game figures), or Trailblazers (20-30,000 from Frontier's official figures), or the Thargoid attack on Sol (23,000 from the official CG figures)
Sure, it's not a feature for everyone, but then none of them are. Having a feature release roughly every five years (Wings 2015, Squadrons 2018, Vanguards 2025) that is to some extent built around meeting people in-game doesn't seem a disproportionate focus.
I do think there's some merit in multiple squadron membership. Each squadron will have a focus but players should be encouraged to participate in multiple activities but not all players should have to do the same things. Joining a Powerplay squadron for someone you like, A mining squadron because you like mining and an AX squadron then doing various activities with people who enjoy each activity wouldn't be a bad thing. Sure it's bonus chasing but if they're going to keep pretending to be a MMO they can work in mechanics that let people work together with all the bonuses. Either through squadron levels or by some ability for a player to participate in multiple groups. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to enjoy the same set of activities so just embrace it and allow branching.
Sure, but since OP made a thread about, they are obviously soliciting feedback on the opinion, which is what I delivered.Same thing applies to forum threads, right?
It's not like the OP made any wild criticisms of the update that might provoke rebuttals or debate.
It's just a thread expressing an opinion which, as it turns out, is shared by quite a few other people.