Page 6 of 9 First 245678 Last
Results 76 to 90 of 129

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

  1. #76
    A major issue I can forsee is instancing issues when squadrons will attempt group play (which seems part of the point of squadrons).

    At the moment even a few wings (as low as a single wing) can face instancing issues, and I can only imagine the bungled mess that will
    happend in a 15-30 player group action. Is that something FD plan to address in some way, or is the idea to keep with the actual P2P system
    and cross fingers ?

  2. #77
    I am an ex EVE online player and co-founder of the AMARR Mining campus branch of EVE UNI. The closest thing to ELITE is eve online and as a sim ELITE wins hands down, However as an MMO EVE is way ahead.

    I believe that if you want some of their market then you may consider this:

    -Squadron caps are way to low and would be woefully inadequate for most groups within the game.
    -membership needs to be open or flexible on the pilot level, Some players belong to more than one group. IE myself Fuel RATS, CANONN ,And the HUTTON TRUCKERS. However taking more than one founder or leader position should not be allowed as this would create unbalance.

    Thanks 07

  3. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #78
    Originally Posted by bookmite View Post (Source)
    Iíll keep this short and sweet,

    We have endured severe instancing issues with multi crew, simply by connecting to two other Cmdrs. It sounds like there will be instances where a Squadron of 250 ( or more ) players might be wishing to share the instance.

    Is this even possible?

    Thanks for the opportunity to voice my concerns Adam, and I wish the whole team good luck with this undertaking.

    We are not proposing changing instancing so that more players can join an instance at this time.


  4. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #79
    Originally Posted by Jockey79 View Post (Source)
    What if someone joins your Squadron that is on your block list?

    Will you see them?
    Will you see their chat?

    It's going to be hard to organise a Squad if half of it has the other half on block.

    Currently I'd expect you to see them in the list of members but you would not see their chat messages.


  5. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #80
    Originally Posted by MAIN SEQUENCE View Post (Source)
    Adam, I have an issue over the use of a full-screen UI for the Squadron page. We already have too many screens that take us out of our cockpits (galmap, Galnet News, Holo-Me, Outfitting). In order to maintain the high levels of immersion that the game already provides, it would be great if the number of full-screen UIs could be reduced rather than increased.

    To clarify this the GUI would be similar to that of starport services, so a little different to galnet etc.


  6. #81
    Originally Posted by Adam Waite View Post (Source)
    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 don’t be shy – 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!
    If 250 is a real hard cap for you allow squads to officially affiliate.

    May I suggest some squads will wish to be constituted from all player types and wish to play the whole game, could there be a tag which accounts for this?

  7. #82
    Hi Adam
    Let's be blunt here: Squadron is not a Guild system, it's just more persistent, one level above a Wing.
    (let's dream that the next level is a real Guild that can manage multiple squads)

    1 - Regarding the obligation to affiliation to larger factions (Alliance, Federation, Empire and independent)?

    I say yes, it must be mandatory!

    - If we consider that squad is somewhat smaller, and that can be created by a single player, the creation value should be equivalent to registration fees for CNPJ (National Register of Legal Entities) registration. Varied values ​​between 100 thousand and one million, at maximum. This takes into consideration that a Carrier must be purchased later.
    This leads to a direct point that would be: Jurisdiction

    this would make the borders really important, limiting areas of action would bring a greater sense of "home" and that the Frontier laws apply to all

    - When creating a squad, the Alliance, Federation, Impero and independent affiliation (where the fee is paid for the chosen power) must be chosen. You will have rights of performance throughout the jurisdiction of affiliated power. In any other system outside the jurisdiction, it will be considered as outlaw.
    This would require a new surcharge on any powers it wishes to act in addition to the former. Fees should vary according to the power chosen.

    2 - There must be a mission similar to a naval mission to allow the creation of a squad, that would be better if it were a mission to be carried out in wing.
    Missions must range from power to power, and in the end, as a reward, a squad opening card is won. (ideas are still cold)

    3 -
    Joining an existing squad must require a player registration fee, something around 100 thousand. This value should go to the squad's portfolio for the purchase of Carrier Ship improvements or purchase of territory exploration rights.

    3.1 - Letters of right of exploitation. There must be a way to separate highly profitable functions that can only be performed by a squad. Example: Imperial charter of asteroid exploration rights in "X" system, this would allow full rights to profitable mining (in line with new mining mechanics Q4)
    This mining letter would allow you to purchase a specific function carrier for mining.

    "Well, at this point I am going beyond what is necessary".

    A mining-specific Carrier is expected to have a huge, advanced refinery that would transform raw ores to more refined materials from what is collected by ordinary miners, which would have above-average market values.
    Carrier could still have advanced Scanners and Limpets that would double the odds of finding rare ores and their amount in addition to normal prospecting, perhaps dyeing asteroids or other more effective means.

  8. #83
    One issue for me is that there isn't much flexibility in squadron hierarchy.

  9. #84
    Apparently, repeating a previous reply verbatim without quoting is allowed, but quoting a previous reply to save you the trouble of typing it out is not. So I'll say it again.

    I am a primarily solo player, as are many. Please don't lock a bunch of features behind 'squadrons' that I and many others will never get to use. Also please avoid rebalancing the game around squadrons, making less and less new content for solo players.

    That's all, thanks for forcing me to type it manually...

  10. #85
    If faction gameplay is mixed in with squadrons this will limit the ability of single commanders to enjoy faction gameplay. Furthermore it will limit the possibility of groups to play with multiple factions, as many BGS groups do at the moment.

    Therefore it will be great to keep BGS and faction gameplay (like pledging) separate from squadrons.

  11. #86
    Originally Posted by Adam Waite View Post (Source)

    We are not proposing changing instancing so that more players can join an instance at this time.

    You guys need to make this very clear, because apparently a lot of people have been playing games with 250+ player battles.

  12. #87
    A Squadron is a group of Commanders who want to band together and organise themselves in-game. This might be to play together, or to focus on certain types of gameplay such as bounty hunting, Community Goals, or perhaps rescuing Commanders who find themselves out of fuel.

    The idea of Squadrons is to provide a series of features that support multiplayer organisation and gameplay. In this Focused Feedback forum, we’ll be covering the creation and management of Squadrons
    The problem ED already has with collaborative play beyond a single session is that it ties players into keeping together and perhaps a single play style. When friends want to meet up after any gap, it's almost inevitable that someone has headed off to do something else and so, before co-op can resume, the players have to travel and meet up again, wait for their correct ship to arrive etc.

    So I think there's two fundamental issues for organised multiplayer activities that needs some consideration right off the bat:

    1st issue - staying with the squadron between sessions:
    Presumably the carriers will mean you can dock and get moved about between sessions, but what if you don't? Will you be left behind in the last system and have the same issue of having to travel to rejoin the fleet - or will the game automatically dock you back to the base carrier when you log off?
    Will you be able to store other ships on the fleet carrier too?

    2nd issue - being tied to the fleet stops the player from 'blazing their own trail' when they want to.
    I'm hoping that this will be reason enough for FD to consider implementing the multiple Commander slots/profiles that were promised back in the days of KS and at release and is still stuck somewhere on the 'not soon' list.
    Because by adding them, it'd then allow us to have profiles for multiplayer fun (squadrons or private groups) and also permits us to have alt profiles that are traders or pirates etc elsewhere in the galaxy. No more hovering over the 'Play' button of the launcher, remembering you're parked on a planet in the SRV, far away from civilization and because all you want is a bit of pew-pew - closing it instead.

    I think the whole game experience has really been held back over the years by not having this flexibility... and it's bound to impact the popularity and take-up of Squadrons too.
    It's bad enough now having just one profile for a primarily single player game experience - and I'm sure that for many of us it'll make a multi-session, collaborative experience of squadrons a non-starter because we wouldn't want to further tie our one pilot to a fleet/game-style/allegiance like that.

  13. #88
    Is there any plans for overhauls or major improvement of the base netcode planned for this? The broad consensus seems to be that the current netcode is unable to really fully support the ambitions the game currently has. Multicrew and Wings have had almost constant issues as long as they have been around. While having groups of up to 250 potentially trying to find instances, forming wings left and right, and in multi crew at the same time sounds amazing. I can't help but to worry that the whole experience of being in a "clan" of sorts would severely suffer from the limitations of the current net code.

  14. #89
    Will the Squadron management GUI be available from the cockpit in space (or from the main menus)? Or only while docked at a station? I'm hoping the former, rather than the latter, because there are many cases where the squadron leadership may be nowhere near a base (Beagle Point, perhaps?). Ideally I would think the GUIs would need to be available everywhere.

    EDIT: Never mind, I spotted this in the "details" thread:

    Originally Posted by Adam Waite View Post (Source)
    In regards to the squadron page, it will be accessible from the cockpit.

  15. #90
    There are a number of aspects of this that I think are far too restrictive and would need to be resolved if this is going to be anything close to workable. We’re not an in game minor faction but we are a neutral player group largely organised through Discord, we’re cross platform and multinational, spread across disparate time zones. From our point of view I have the following observations.

    We’re a tiny player group that no one has every heard of and we’ve only been going a few months but we have 250 members. The 250 player limit is far too small, I should think 20 times that would be a sensible starting point. Surely you are aware there are some very large player groups in this game?

    This absolutely needs to be cross platform, anything else is unacceptable. I appreciate we won’t be able to play directly with our friends on other platforms but there’s no way I would abandon my friends on other platforms and in fact split our membership. If it’s too complicated to put the squadron tools in game and still have them cross platform, put them on a website. This is the single most important issue for us.

    The need for inviter and invitee to be online at the same time is unnecessary and pointlessly restrictive. We’re across multiple time zones and you’re just making things unnecessarily frustrating.

    Only being able to be in one squadron at a time is a bizarre restriction. I’m a trucker and proud to be so, I’m also a founder of our player group and an associate member of more than a dozen other groups. You’re telling me I need to leave the Truckers to be a member of the group I helped to found, or to leave my own group to be a Trucker? No thank you.

    Having one leader doesn’t work for us either. Our group has 6 leaders and we share the administration roles. This is another example of a frustrating restriction.

    From our point of view this whole proposal is disappointing, divisive and unworkable, we had hoped for something more like the arrangement Canonn currently have with their in-game asset, the Gnosis, available to every member on every platform but with an additional membership function. Please reconsider.