Frontier can we please clean up Squadrons UI... bloody one commander squadrons

I think a couple of people have hit the nail on the head it needs filters.

I've no issue with one man squadrons and people using it as a way to find wing mates but there seem to be a lot of squadrons one man, no public statement, no play types or objects set which tells me they create a squadron for lols to see how it works and will just leave it be.

Then you make squadrons meaningless for small or starting squadrons, making it pointless now for both small and large groups.

No, don't filter on single pilot rosters. Filter on tags existing. Guess what happens to the " no public statement, no play types or objects set which tells me they create a squadron for lols to see how it works and will just leave it be" that you hate WITHOUT REMOVING THE NEW SQUADRONS DOING IT FOR REAL.
 
That's fair enough. I'm not opposed to a filter, I'm opposed to people dumping on small groups.

And let's not forget even the biggest player group starts with but one member.

Where do we draw the line before it becomes "acceptable" for a Squadron to advertise?

Hasn't anything to do with advertising a squadron. I think such a filter should be optional and off by default, but the user should be able to set a threshold for the number of members for Squadrons he wants to see (whether that threashold is 1, 10 or 100 is the decision of the user/player)
 

Deleted member 110222

D
Hasn't anything to do with advertising a squadron. I think such a filter should be optional and off by default, but the user should be able to set a threshold for the number of members for Squadrons he wants to see (whether that threashold is 1, 10 or 100 is the decision of the user/player)

That's more like it. I agree completely there. +rep.
 
Hasn't anything to do with advertising a squadron. I think such a filter should be optional and off by default, but the user should be able to set a threshold for the number of members for Squadrons he wants to see (whether that threashold is 1, 10 or 100 is the decision of the user/player)

WHY should it be based on the number of pilots???

The only actual actionable complaint detail we have is the plethora of squadrons with no tasks or mission statement or anything, because they are clearly just try-outs or lolzing. But that would be the case even if there were 100 other trolls tagged to the squadron.

Don't make a count based filter. Order by maybe, not filter it out. Filter IN "has mission statement". Filter IN "tag: PvE BGS". The latter is already there.

And if you don't know what tagged squadron role you're looking for, you aren't using any filters and have no clue what you're looking for. So why do you want filtering AT ALL? If you DO know what squadron tag you'd be interested in, filtering FOR THAT TAG chucks out the lolz squadrons automatically, without needing "has more than X pilots".
 
WHY should it be based on the number of pilots???

The only actual actionable complaint detail we have is the plethora of squadrons with no tasks or mission statement or anything, because they are clearly just try-outs or lolzing. But that would be the case even if there were 100 other trolls tagged to the squadron.

Don't make a count based filter. Order by maybe, not filter it out. Filter IN "has mission statement". Filter IN "tag: PvE BGS". The latter is already there.

And if you don't know what tagged squadron role you're looking for, you aren't using any filters and have no clue what you're looking for. So why do you want filtering AT ALL? If you DO know what squadron tag you'd be interested in, filtering FOR THAT TAG chucks out the lolz squadrons automatically, without needing "has more than X pilots".

Why don't have both? If you don't think a "filter by number of members" makes sense, you wouldn't have to use it. Would be an optional filter after all (like every other filter, too).
 
Some of us are just waiting for our membership to come back too. I know I’ve quite a few people who simply have not yet updated/logged in for various reasons - work, taking a break, caught in the California Wildfire, on vacation or just temoraraly MIA.

Tough if it’s inconvenient for you.
 
That;s not an answer as to why you want to filter out small squadrons.

Why not? Because filtering out small ones kills small squadrons, and every squadron starts off small.

Because I would find it very useful. Should be enough as a reason.

My job is not to ensure the survival of small Squadrons, and if I only want to see Squadrons with many members in my view of the Squadron list, I should have a filter to do so. Doesn't force you to do the same.

Baffles me how someone could even argue against the addition of an optional filter for a list that would be turned off by default :S
 
Last edited:
Isn't this a variation of the old catch 22?

You can't get a job without experience but you can't get experience without a job.

You can't have your squadron listed without x members, but no one can see your squadron to join it to get your members above x.

yep my thoughts exactly.
 
Having filter tags that work would go a long way. Right now the only way to change the filter tags is to exit squads and then reenter them and hope you get tags that mean something. The whole search setup is and is totally useless. Make search functional and you solve most of these issues.

Caliber
 
Just put the damn filter in and have the filter option adjustable by:

1. Name
2. Creation Date
3. Membership size
4. Platform (PC, PS4 etc)
5. Others
 
Why did this turn into ant sort of argument about who deserves a squadron? Just add a filter or sort. Done.

Because the OP wanted small squadrons killed off. Read the thread before asking about it. Especially if you're going to complain about the content. Read the content first.
 
Just put the damn filter in and have the filter option adjustable by:

1. Name
2. Creation Date
4. Platform (PC, PS4 etc)
5. Others

Nope. #3 will kill Squadrons. They all start at one lone member. How are they supposed to get new members if they're invisible.

And none of you demanding that have a reason why it is a good thing, let alone good enough to risk the death of small squadrons and maybe squadrons altogether.

Why does name matter? If you already know the name of it, you don't need to filter to find it. Why does creation date matter? Others specifies nothing. There's already lots of others.

People who use it claim filters aren't working, that's a bug, but they theoretically exist now. So the only one in your list that makes sense is the fifth. And it's already in the game.

Why any of the others?

Heck, why the interest in somethig to help kill squadrons? I don't use it, won't use it ever as far as I can see, but if it's going to be in, I want it to be useful to anyone who needs or wants it.

All I can think of for this behaviour is two groups:
1) large factions that use reddit et al to arrange and who may be harmed by squadrons, but at best will be unable to use it.
2) People wanting the game to fail so that they can get giggles on the forums. Or fluff another game under threat by the success of this one.
 
Nope. #3 will kill Squadrons. They all start at one lone member. How are they supposed to get new members if they're invisible.

And none of you demanding that have a reason why it is a good thing, let alone good enough to risk the death of small squadrons and maybe squadrons altogether.

Why does name matter? If you already know the name of it, you don't need to filter to find it. Why does creation date matter? Others specifies nothing. There's already lots of others.

.

Because it's MY ship, MY screens , MY choice - and certainly not Squadron X's. There are many ways already to advertise squadrons the ED forums, Inara, websites etc. The onscreen squadron list with filters is just one more additional option.

So here's the list again.

1. Name
2. Creation Date
3. Membership size
4. Platform (PC, PS4 etc)
5. Others
 
Last edited:
....

And this is exactly the reason trying to shoehorn a Guild system into Elite was just a ridiculously stupid idea.

I look forward to the 'Elite Raid Missions', where you can go kill a Thargoid Mothership and win a rare random module.

What's next, Squadron-Only Permit zones?

*shakes head*
 
Nope. #3 will kill Squadrons. They all start at one lone member. How are they supposed to get new members if they're invisible.

It is my understanding that Squadrons are primarily intended for groups of players that have already formed, and already know each other and have already formed "groups" either IRL, using Wings or using third-party tools like Inara. Those Squadrons are not going to have any difficulty finding each other and giving themselves that initial growth spurt beyond the squadron-of-one stage.

However, if a squadron-of-one was formed primarily for LOLs, function-testing or for BGS-monitoring purposes, and they have no intention of admitting new members, the squadron's founder should at least have an option to "switch off" or "demote" their squadron in the list. Or have an "actively recruiting" button and any Squadron not actively recruiting gets pushed down the bottom of the list.

Let's face it: Squadrons as implemented are not going to be favourable for every group. If I formed a Squadron, for example, I would like to choose to be pro-Federation, pro-Empire, pro-Alliance and anti-Independent. But apparently, that's not an option; I can only be pro-one-of-those-groups. I would either have to choose one Superpower, not choose an alignment at all, or choose Independent (all of which would be the exact antithesis of what I actually stood for). And, to he honest, FD wold have had a very hard time designing Squadrons with enough flexibility that they appealed to every player group. So I suspect many Squadrons will be formed, discovered that they are of little use (or never get off the ground), and abandoned.

Is there any method in-game, at all, for defunct Squadrons to be deleted from the list? If not, then the list is going to get very cluttered, very quickly, with "dead" Squadrons. And that is what will "kill off Squadrons": if new players (who can't afford to start their own Squadron) want to find a good Squadron but can't find an active one because the list is full of dead ones. Or if there is no indicator on the list whether a Squadron is "alive" or "dead", then a newbie might be waiting days or weeks for responses to requests to join, that are never going to come.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that squadrons do not represent a groups actual player numbers. I'm in a squadron all on my own, but can you honestly tell me that the Mercs of Mikunn (second biggest bgs group in systems controlled and a triple elite group) only have one player and that this squadron should not be allowed ? Take off your blinkers and look at the big picture, most groups are multi platform.
The problem is that the squadron design is flawed so we still have to heavily rely on third party software to coordinate and communicate.
 
Because the OP wanted small squadrons killed off. Read the thread before asking about it. Especially if you're going to complain about the content. Read the content first.

OP wants useful filter features for a big fat pile of data; that's just sensible. It's not a crusade to kill off Dood-and-his-Cat squadrons, who are most likely not looking for recruitment in the first place so much as a place to hang their Remlok and get their local system data.
 
Back
Top Bottom