Page 1 of 9 1235 Last
Results 1 to 15 of 129

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.

  1. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #1


    Hello Commanders!

    Please Remember This thread is for feedback directed at developers, not other posters. Please post potential issues you can see with this feature here.

    We are not likely to respond directly to posts in this thread, but we will be scouring it, so donít be shy Ė if you see something that you think will be an issue, point it out!

    Try to be as specific as possible with your issues. The more detail, the better!

    When considering issues, please remember to check the Detail Request thread to see if there are updates that might pertain to your concerns!

  2. #2
    The limitation to a 250 member cap is already a no-go for our playergroup alone, we are already 3x-4x that size, and this forces people to have to split up and or constantly change squadrons to do whatever they want to that day.

  3. #3
    If we are assume squadrons are going to be Elite’s version of guilds, then in order for them to be considered a success how they operate in other games should be taken in consideration.

    It is important to consider the requirements of small guilds as well as large ones, and not put small guilds in a position where they are put in such a position where they will disintegrate due to larger guilds “having all the fun stuff”

    It should also be noted that player expectations of what a guild/clan is has moved on from the days of Vanilla WoW. In modern games, guilds/clans are more akin to facebook groups than a monogamous relationship where one can only belong to one at a time.

    By this I mean that players should be allowed to be in multiple squadrons in the same way as they are private groups. Not only would this not force players to choose which set of friends above another it would also allow for players in small squadrons to enjoy the benefits of larger ones and vice versa.

    This is also important because currently private groups allow players to be more flexible in the types of gaming they enjoy, and for squadrons to largely negate that advantage would be an issue.

    Basically, the design as outlined is more akin to guild management circa 2005. Expectations and the way people player have moved on since then. I would suggest taking a look at how guild management works in say GW2, and elder scrolls online.

    Maximum Squadron size

    Now obviously, there is a technical limitation to use. But the reality is, is that if the maximum size is too small then it becomes a question of always juggling the roster to ensure only the most active can remain. Now while this extra work is fun for some, to others it can become a second job, especially if said guild is well known or popular.

    Squadron Management

    Comprehensive management tools. Being able to manage your squadron is key, Promoting, kicking, allowing leaders to manage the roster by say last login date, custom ranks as well as providing a dedicated squadron chat channel and MOTD are all regarded as bare minimum.
    There are a number of scenarios that need to be accounted for. What happens if the Squadron leader leaves or stops playing.


    O One guild per player is too limiting and forces people to choose between friends.This is also important because currently private groups allow players to be more flexible in the types of gaming they enjoy, and for squadrons to largely negate that advantage would be an issue.

    O Guild management features are inflexible and open to abuse(esp The proposed structure and permissions)
    O Max size too small, pair that with basic roster tools will make management a pain

    Names are now confusing.

    In most air forces a wing is larger than a squadron, so in the interests of clarity wings should be renamed flights,

    Squadrons can stay the same as they are and Wings then become an alliance of squadrons and the largest unit in an air force is the group.

    So in elite terms it would go Flight(wing as was), Squadron, Wing (alliance of squadrons), Group, private group.

  4. #4
    250 is a very low number, PA has about 4 times the number of people and of that 1000 usually have half to 2/3rds as active. Please do not add a cap to the squadrons.

    Also, more roles are needed or custom roles need to be created. We'll have people who can invite and kick, some who could do that and manage the bank, and then some that will do fleet carrier management, some that will do jumping but not carrier management. Roles need to be way more flexible than leader, officer, member.

    Also, established groups should get first dibs on names and short names. It's too easy for a troll to snipe names of pre-existing wings.

    Also, this is not acceptable:


    Squadrons are not planned to be cross platform at this time.


  5. #5
    What is stopping a single player from taking the name of a well known player group immediately at launch and not relinquishing the name? For example if as soon as the update goes live a player were to establish a squadron name of "Wolves of Jonai" or "Diamond Frogs", then abandon it, the actual player group would have to use another squadron name then the already established group name previously used on third party sites.

    Will there be an opportunity for well established large groups to reserve the right to their player group names prior to the launch?

  6. #6
    Squadron name: This has to be a unique name that cannot be changed once the Squadron is created.

    If the "official" Player Groups / Player Minor Factions aren't put in first or somehow verified, there are likely going to be a fair number of trolls trying to snag up those Squadron names before the "proper owners" can. we saw this happen ourselves with Xbox groups when released. If these cannot be changed or renamed and must be unique, all it takes is one troll to knacker the experience here for a huge number of people.

    Capping Squadron membership at 250 Commanders

    not every member in every faction will be "active" however our metrics show that our current active members ranges between 500 and 700. I'd like to know the reasoning behind a cap really and to definitely suggest raising that to at least 1k

    If a Commander accesses the Squadron page and is not currently part of Squadron

    To me this implies having 1 squadron per commander. With some groups (fuel rats, hutton truckers etc) it's entirely possible to be a part of them AND part of another PG / PMF as well. It may be worth looking into allowing 2 or three squadrons per commander.

    There are three classes of Squadron member and these are

    This may be a little limiting. I would personally say to have at least FOUR levels, one of which is a new recruit who has access to only the very basic functions. Then pilot when trusted with more information, and again more when an officer.

    Both the invitee and inviter must be online at the same time for the invitation to be sent and accepted.

    Having to have both inviter and ee online at the same time isn't going to help folks. Rather go down the road of invites are held and then can be accepted at any time (or applications are just accepted, rather than having to invite)

  7. #7
    There should be a Science option for Squadron type.

    Edit: And timezone makes no sense for worldwide groups like Canonn - we might want a Barnacle research Squadron that would be activate 24-7, for instance. Best to allow an 'all' option for TZ.

  8. #8
    I enjoy playing the game as a solo player, so squads and wings don't really appeal to me, however my concern is, when you introduced Wings, all the best mission rewards were switched to wing missions only and solo players were left with the dregs or flying Wing missions solo.

    Please remember despite many players wanting Squads, not everyone does, so please don't force us out the game by making it unplayable as a solo commander.

  9. #9
    Frontier, you'll need to include a way to prevent randoms/enemies from swiftly taking the names of established ED player groups, perhaps most especially those with an existing in-game minor faction.

    Otherwise I fear there may be quite a lot of trolling...

  10. #10
    There are 24 player wings on Inara that are larger than 250 members. No doubt there are others of similar size that don't use Inara. 250 could merely be the starting size, with the possibility of adding additional tiers at additional cost in increments of 250. Make the max at least 1000 or better 1500. To that end there also should be a squadron bank where members can deposit credits to pay for the size upgrades. Why should the leader shoulder that alone ?

  11. #11
    The fact that both the invitee and the inviter both having to be online may cause a huge problem if there is no way for the inviter to know when the invitee is online

  12. #12
    Echoing what has already been mentioned

    250 player cap is silly.

    A big problem with this game in general is unnecessary limitations. (ie no landing gear/landing when fighter deployed or no deploying SRV while in a crew) Lets not have any more of this kind of thinking unless there's a serious technical limitation to it.

  13. #13
    As has already been mentioned, requiring both parties of an invite to be online at the same time will cause problems. Some sort of in-game email system needs to be used for this.

  14. #14

    Trollers taking big groups names before them.

    When sending invites you should just send it and them get a message when they get online again.

  15. #15
    250 is really silly i agree with many of the people here (We have 2500k plus members and we would have to make many squadrons)

    Maybe push it up to 500 or 1k also could we be able to have two leaders instead of one Ty

    EDIT: Could we maybe request if we have a big group that you guys could add more slots to our Squadron?

    Kind Regards Wolves of Jonai Leadership


Page 1 of 9 1235 Last