Counterpoint: No, it's not. Not even a little bit. There currently is no friend/foe designation for relationships between Squadrons and if there were it would be easily resolvable with multiple squadrons by applying even an ounce of imagination. What this is really about is you grasping at straws to come up with any random reason to defend the status quo, because that's your favorite thing. Which is great because when Frontier finally addresses this problem, you'll love it and say they are geniuses and that this is what you wanted all along.
Petition To Allow CMDRs To Join Multiple Squadrons
- Thread starter Moritasgus
- Start date
Ummm.... did you reply to my post by mistake?
Lol! You ninja edited!
On a side note, if you can be civil with him I think you’ll find he is not just mindlessly defending the status quo and actually has developed his opinions based on personal experience.
Being positive about new features isn't "defending the status quo", its embracing change which is pretty much the opposite of that.
Reading someone's squadron in the target display functions as an IFF, if you can remember your own squadron name and maybe even those of allies and enemies YMMV obviously.
How would it work if you're the one who created it and is the leader (manager, or whatever is being called)? Let's say I create a squadron with my family, let my kids in and their friends, then I want to go on DW2 and they have a squadron for it that I'd like to join. I have to give up my position in family squad, and someone in the family take over temporarily the leadership, until DW2 is over and I sign back in?
I think the problem here is that there are different incompatible views of what function the squadron is supposed to fill. I will treat it as a "family" and never really leave or join any other squadron. All group activities would have to continue to exist outside (Discord) of Elite.
What happens when a CMDR joins a rival squadron for the purposes of espionage or sabotage? How many of you will whine on the forums about it?
Which shows that squadrons is really all about combat and conflict. It's too bad that only combat is the guiding light for how Elite is designed.
Anyway, it could be solved by having a "non-compete" checkbox so the creator of a squadron could choose to make it exclusive or not. So combat oriented squadrons would require/demand their members to be single-squadders. While exploration, mining, science, etc, could have the "non-compete" unchecked to allow members to belong to multiple.
What would be the basis of the "whine" though, given that single or multi squadron membership wouldn't be relevant to that issue?
Nothing to stop you leaving one squadron to spy on another.
Although I'd support an initiative for Squadrons to form "alliances" of some sort, I really believe that Squadron membership itself should remain exclusive.
Choices need to have meaning and value- so either remain independent (as in, don't join a squadron) or make a choice and stand by it. We've too many instances in Elite Dangerous where choices remain completely meaningless to each player- and although some might consider that "fun" it really does nothing for validating or enhancing the environment itself in the game. IMO it's what makes the game feel very diluted and weak, such as faction ranks and other oddities. (Like I can go out and shoot 20 Federation ships then fly right into one of their stations as if nothing ever happened, etc.)
In fact, I'd even add a cooldown to prevent leaving/joining multiple times, say a 24 hour cooldown waiting period that prevents people from abusing/exploiting the mechanic. Again- it should be a meaningful choice- else remain independent as a "freelancer" if you wish.
An "alliance" would allow multiple Squadrons who may have minor differences in vision/style/goals to come organize for very specific ones- which is where "lending support to other Squadrons" could be addressed, but still keep values/goals/vision unique to each. Just as a business can have alliances with others- but they have their own identity.
Frontier has a somewhat unique opportunity to really make this feature shine.
Choices need to have meaning and value- so either remain independent (as in, don't join a squadron) or make a choice and stand by it. We've too many instances in Elite Dangerous where choices remain completely meaningless to each player- and although some might consider that "fun" it really does nothing for validating or enhancing the environment itself in the game. IMO it's what makes the game feel very diluted and weak, such as faction ranks and other oddities. (Like I can go out and shoot 20 Federation ships then fly right into one of their stations as if nothing ever happened, etc.)
In fact, I'd even add a cooldown to prevent leaving/joining multiple times, say a 24 hour cooldown waiting period that prevents people from abusing/exploiting the mechanic. Again- it should be a meaningful choice- else remain independent as a "freelancer" if you wish.
An "alliance" would allow multiple Squadrons who may have minor differences in vision/style/goals to come organize for very specific ones- which is where "lending support to other Squadrons" could be addressed, but still keep values/goals/vision unique to each. Just as a business can have alliances with others- but they have their own identity.
Frontier has a somewhat unique opportunity to really make this feature shine.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
They're not a thing? I am not sure what groups you fly with, but there are plenty of wars and alliances going on in the game at any given time.
And, it doesn't sound like you Bounty Hunt players. A squadron tag will quickly identify them as friend, or potential foe. Being able to change that at a whim won't.
Yes, for the grand total of four people at the same time.
Indeed. For a brief while our group was declared war on by another. After a few skirmishes and some rebuys a ceasefire was declared. This was all assisted by a mix of in game chats, discord groups, inara and EDR (that brilliant plugin to the stupendous EDMC). All third party tools which allow for players to interact as groups. Seems squadrons is designed to cover that ground in game. Kudos to FD for getting that ball finally rolling. The existence of web designers and programmers all coming together and stringing these elements for the sake of group interactions in quite large numbers is pretty solid proof of interest. Here’s hoping FD quickly realise they’re not only on the right track, but also need to implement diplomatic states and interactions between the squadrons next.
So why not have an "exclusive" tickbox for the squadron?
It seems that many people who don't like multi-squadron membership still see the need for some other grouping system that is very similar to another (but non-exclusive) squadron.
On average on a weekend night, that's unfortunately more than enough.
They said in the video there would be no penalty for dropping and joining.
True. Other games have the concept of main guilds and associate guilds, with the understanding that your true loyalty lies with your main guild, and associate guilds are for stuff you do on the side. Some guilds even demand that their members not be part of any associate guilds.
I don't speak for everyone else- but it's not a matter of "liking" or "disliking" multiple Squadron membership- rather it's the difference in understanding what Squadrons are and aren't intended or designed to do.
Frontier didn't design Squadrons as a Twitter hashtag element with GoFundme links so people can pick and choose whatever they want to support as their feelings change on an hourly basis. That's the difference, IMO.
Wait for sales, and buy alt accounts. 
Frontier probably likes that.
Frontier probably likes that.
Too many replies overnight to get involved back into the nitty gritty of the conversation so i'll just summarise my thoughts on some of the common points:
The thing is, the new system isn't fit for purpose. It doesn't accurately reflect the ED community that's developed using 3rd party tools and these (and other) forums.
If this guild system had been in place from 1.0 then yes player groups would have developed silo'd with one guild per player, but by doing that the Devs would have tribalised the population. I'd be highly surprised if the fuel rats would have formed as most guilds wouldn't want to help other guilds. If anything an early guild system would have pushed us more and more towards EVE and mega guilds fighting PvP fights all over the place.
Thankfully the Devs waiting is a blessing as things developed more organically, people went exploring with strangers on mass trips. People started racing tournaments. People started refueling. None of that would have happened if people were locked into guilds with a handful of like minded people. Just like real life where people have work friends, school friends, hobby friends its healthy to belong to many groups with different interests.
I'm seeing about 2/3 pro and 1/3 against multi squadrons, the ones who are against it all seem to be in the same mindset that its us vs them. Diplomacy (which doesn't exist in game yet), spying, gankers, other people are the worst so i need to lock my friends into a group and conspire against everyone else because its not safe. Maybe its just me but I thought ED were trying to do something different from the classic 'mmo' guild vs guild PvP fest.
The thing is, the new system isn't fit for purpose. It doesn't accurately reflect the ED community that's developed using 3rd party tools and these (and other) forums.
If this guild system had been in place from 1.0 then yes player groups would have developed silo'd with one guild per player, but by doing that the Devs would have tribalised the population. I'd be highly surprised if the fuel rats would have formed as most guilds wouldn't want to help other guilds. If anything an early guild system would have pushed us more and more towards EVE and mega guilds fighting PvP fights all over the place.
Thankfully the Devs waiting is a blessing as things developed more organically, people went exploring with strangers on mass trips. People started racing tournaments. People started refueling. None of that would have happened if people were locked into guilds with a handful of like minded people. Just like real life where people have work friends, school friends, hobby friends its healthy to belong to many groups with different interests.
I'm seeing about 2/3 pro and 1/3 against multi squadrons, the ones who are against it all seem to be in the same mindset that its us vs them. Diplomacy (which doesn't exist in game yet), spying, gankers, other people are the worst so i need to lock my friends into a group and conspire against everyone else because its not safe. Maybe its just me but I thought ED were trying to do something different from the classic 'mmo' guild vs guild PvP fest.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
Not for me. I can't remember the last weekend I was in fights with less than 3 wings on each side. During training it's pretty much the same.
These are all cross-group fights. I don't want everyone to have to join one of the other squadrons to show up as friendly, which is why I'd prefer Allied Squadrons with a separate colour coding on the scanner for members of those Squadrons. Or since we're based in a community server, a way for commanders to join that community without leaving their squadron or changing their tags. Both would be best.
Thing is you're playing the game like a traditional PvP MMO and that's great, but an awful lot of us aren't. I've played in OPEN since Gamma and i'd say I've been killed less than 5 times by human players my total deaths is 16, I've never gone long time exploring so i'm nearly always around the bubble. I'm not even elite in anything yet despite about 1200 in game hours. A lot of us have no interest in logging in to find 20 declarations of war on our squadrons from PvP factions looks to make everyone show up on their scanner as hostile.