Petition To Allow CMDRs To Join Multiple Squadrons
- Thread starter Moritasgus
- Start date
First at all, carrier will be open only so it makes a lot of difference. And we don t know yet but maybe you will alliance after that might help you.
This.
Sourced or theorycrafting ?.
it is in the focused feedback.
Interesting, I wonder why? No reason why the game can't make the carrier visible to squadron members who are playing in solo. if anything, it's making it visible in open that poses challenges - either it needs to be indestructible which makes it not realistic, or it needs someone manning the guns 24/7 so a rival squadron doesn't show up when everyone is asleep or at work, and blast it to pieces.
i don't know the "why". But it makes quite some sense than a multiplayer features is only in open only.
I don t have more info than what FD has written.
As a request by players or an announcement from FDEV ?.
I am curious how many problems and bugs will arise with the first iteration of "single squadrons" - when this is sorted, maybe it will be worth to look at "multi squadrons".
I don't see any problem with "single squadrons". If I want to take part in any other community group I can still do it the old fashioned way by joining their discord, inara-group or whatever medium they use.
No biggie for me.
I don't see any problem with "single squadrons". If I want to take part in any other community group I can still do it the old fashioned way by joining their discord, inara-group or whatever medium they use.
No biggie for me.
I think no. There's no penalty for changing squadrons, and application acceptance can (by look of it) be delegated to lower ranks, so group leaders aren't constantly swamped with re-applications. I think this means squadrons won't be watertight without some thought, which is very interesting when it comes to defending against fifth column activities.
I've seen one idea for having squadron alliances, which might make members of ally squadrons show green. If that were extended to include some limited priority comms between squads I think that could be interesting too but it's an extension of one player one squadron, which is - no matter how much people might want to see it as parallel - is not a guild, it's a squadron. I think there's a difference.
I've seen one idea for having squadron alliances, which might make members of ally squadrons show green. If that were extended to include some limited priority comms between squads I think that could be interesting too but it's an extension of one player one squadron, which is - no matter how much people might want to see it as parallel - is not a guild, it's a squadron. I think there's a difference.
I don't understand you guys...
Up to yesterday everyone was concerned because you can have ranks with Empire and Federation which is supposed to be a big immersion breaker... and now you want to join multiple squadrons?
I don't care a lot about squadron so I don't want to influence the discussion but to me this point looks totally incoherent.
Anyway if it was for me I would allow a maximum of 2 squadrons to allow spionage and undercover gameplay, in case 2 squadrons are opponents.
Up to yesterday everyone was concerned because you can have ranks with Empire and Federation which is supposed to be a big immersion breaker... and now you want to join multiple squadrons?
I don't care a lot about squadron so I don't want to influence the discussion but to me this point looks totally incoherent.
Anyway if it was for me I would allow a maximum of 2 squadrons to allow spionage and undercover gameplay, in case 2 squadrons are opponents.
I think we're talking about different things here. Fuel Rats or DW should not be squadrons. Fuel Rats involves many people with many different playstyles, and they can form different squadrons, like the air force squadrons in real life. Those organizations should have something like a "Badge" or organizational distinction, but I don't think they need to be in the same squadron.
I'm more inclined towards a one-pilot one-squadron mechanic, with the addition of some form of giving members of larger organizations some kind of badge or rank in the larger organization.
I'm more inclined towards a one-pilot one-squadron mechanic, with the addition of some form of giving members of larger organizations some kind of badge or rank in the larger organization.
Multipe visible squadron tags is a legitimate concern, but that could be addressed by choosing to assign only one of your sqaudron tags to your transponder. So if you're out fighting for Lavigny's Legion or whatever, that's what you show up as. No need to advertise to others that you're also a Fuel Rat and a member of Canonn (but all of your squadron affiliations will be visble to other squadron members on the appropriate membership tables).
But unless something is done about this, there will never be a carrier in deep space for Fuel Rats to operate from (unless enough of them refuse to join Canonn etc). Nor will there ever be a Distant Worlds carrier, or another Gnosis, except by FDev "special decree" (and squadron comms would be useful to such groups too, it's not just about the carriers). Even if a group has NO restrictive policy on membership of other groups, they will be forced to implement such a policy.
NO!!!
But unless something is done about this, there will never be a carrier in deep space for Fuel Rats to operate from (unless enough of them refuse to join Canonn etc). Nor will there ever be a Distant Worlds carrier, or another Gnosis, except by FDev "special decree" (and squadron comms would be useful to such groups too, it's not just about the carriers). Even if a group has NO restrictive policy on membership of other groups, they will be forced to implement such a policy.
NO!!!
Support. Squadrons aren't guilds, they're informal social organisations. Just produce a dropdown to select which one of the many squadrons you're currently representing (this can even be none) and that's what you show and which squadron your efforts benefit for leadboard stuff. Simple.
Though this thread should really be in beta feedback.
Though this thread should really be in beta feedback.
Not Supported, but for exactly the same reason!
Multiple Membership, when done even half properly is orders of magnitudes more complicated (and expensive to develop) than single membership. The cheap solution devalues Squads to the point of being irrelevant.
Much as I wanted a proper Multi Membership implementation with consequences for your Squad Choices and Actions, it isnt reasonaly possible, so am content with what we have.