Petition To Allow CMDRs To Join Multiple Squadrons

[Sylow]

Hmm, yea. One character, one guild (or squad). Once again, FD shows that in terms of multiplayer games, they're still on the 2001 standard. Just like apparently a number of people in this thread.
.
Multi-guilding is a thing in many newer MMOs. Prime examples being GW2 and ESO. And many of the "unsurmountable problems" people bring up in this thread were already solved there. There is no shame in looking at other games, seeing what's good and using that. It's not like those games have a copyright on how they handle their guilds.
.
Just for example the clan tag: you don't carry five of them. You decide which guild you represent at the moment. In GW2 that's a simple menu item, in ESO you put on the tabard of your guild. (It's an equipment slot only for this purpose, no stats or anything else. ) You want to claim a fortification for your guild? You have to show which guild you represent.
.
It's not that hard. All the problems brought up here were seen, discussed and solved in other games. But of course it's easier to disregard recent game developments and stick to the standard of almost two decades ago.
.

 

[Braandlin]

But isn't the point of having in games 'social' tools to keep people in game rather than having to use 3rd party tools? If the answer is discord then i should change my 'petition' to asking FDev to cancel squadrons all together because we already had the answer and don't need them. Stop wasting precious dev time on features nobody wants because we already have the answer in discord.

Ideally i would agree with you. One of the things that has really helped FDev are the number of wonderful 3rd party tools that exist. In effect FDev have freelanced out large portions of supportive applications simply by making the api available.

I want FDev working on core game play.

However my problem with this is that I'm an xbox player. And the kind of tools available on PC in rela time using the journal simply are not available to me on xbox (for example anything that uses data from the player journal). This makes playing ED on PC compared to xbox a significantly different experience. Which is doubly frustrating because I actually pay more for the same game as I have to pay microsoft a monthly subscription....

I'm not suggesting there is an easy remedy to this - it's just what it is.

 

[Braandlin]

It's not that hard. All the problems brought up here were seen, discussed and solved in other games. But of course it's easier to disregard recent game developments and stick to the standard of almost two decades ago.

I see zero reason why one game should do something just because another game does.

 

[Sylow]

But isn't the point of having in games 'social' tools to keep people in game rather than having to use 3rd party tools? If the answer is discord then i should change my 'petition' to asking FDev to cancel squadrons all together because we already had the answer and don't need them. Stop wasting precious dev time on features nobody wants because we already have the answer in discord.

.
Absolutely. If discord solves everything, then apparently FD doesn't need to care.
.
I personally dislike discord for several reasons, and think that things of inside a game should be kept inside the game. This also means that when social features are finally added to the game, they should be done properly. We had enough of half-you-know-the-word solutions in this game already. The "placeholder" talk is omnipresent. And now we want a placeholder guild/squadron system, so people still have to fill in the gaps with third party solutions?
.
I am sorry, but if given the choice, i'd say to better add -nothing- than to add yet another crippled implementation which falls short of todays games standards. So at least we'd have the chance to in the future get a full implementation, instead of being stuck to a weak excuse of an implementation and relying on third party tools for the rest.
.
On discord: from all we know and experience, this game has problems in retention of new players. (Hello to Eve, btw. ) Social interaction is what keeps games communities alive these days. There's enough developer reports of other games out there to confirm that. By "requiring" discord, you just add one more barrier of entry. ED aready has enough of those for the new player. I really think that guilds and a social system would be essential for this game.
.
And that's even one more good reason to have several guilds available: in ESO for example, my most active guild for a very long time was a social one. It very much serves as training grounds for newer players. We pick them up, we teach them stuff. Depending on their interests, some stay, others move on. Often to partner guilds. On the "one guild only" implementation, i'd have to decide: do i join a guild which helps beginners, or would i rather go for ...?
.
It's things like these, which the one-guild-only concept eliminates. I don't expect any guild/squad out there to cover all styles of play and interests. And if it does, it most likely isn't especially good at any of them. Allowing us to mix and match for our needs would go a long way.
.
.

I see zero reason why one game should do something just because another game does.

.
Hmm, I am sorry. Apparently what i wrote was not apprehensable enough. My statement was not "copy because of copy". I wanted to say that it's actually valid to also look at other games and see what they are doing. You can find solutions there for problems which some people in this thread claim to be not solveable.
.
So if such solutions can be found, it could be possible to consider them, learn from them and apply suitably. On the other hand, i dare to point your criticism back to this thread: there are some "but it always was like that" postings in here. So blindly copying things from WoW and EVE is the way to go, but looking at newer games, with newer solutions, would be wrong?
.
I simply think that something developed in 2018 (which this is), might just be allowed to also look at games which came out in 2012, see what they did and use the good parts from that. Sorry for the sarcasm, it's not pointed directly at you, but some postings in this thread really feel like the four yorkshiremen to me.
.

 

[Strangepork]

Elite is a wonderful game that allows you to do many activities across a wide range of space. The addition of new in game social tools is a great step towards bringing us into game from using 3rd party tools.
Many players are actively involved in several pursuits whether its BGS with one faction and Hutton Trucking or Piracy and Fuel Ratting. Doesn't really matter, restricting CMDRs to one faction means that many will still spend 90% of their time arranging social things outside of the game.
I understand that the ship has possible already sailed for 3.3 but please consider if not now then in a future update the addition of being in 2 or even more squadrons at the same time.
The scope for this is endless, you can for example remain in your current group while joining a temporary one for events like DW2 etc etc.
Personally i'm not interested in interguild diplomacy and as its not currently in game i'm not going to focus on the problems caused by being in several squadrons at the same time when diplomacy is in the game.
Be interested to hear those for and against this posting in one place rather than hijacking other threads, if there's enough support maybe we can show FDev this is a feature that the public want them to focus on.


See also this for more discussion:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/454569-Only-one-Squadron-at-a-time

Agreed, though betas rarely iron out the bugs, never mind big changes.

 

[Artie]

A genuine question - I see often statements that "many games allow multiple guilds", but there are named just Guild Wars 2 and Elder Scrolls Online and nothing else. What are the other major games? I don't know any, but I would like to expand my knowledge...

 

[Mordhar]

I reckon about every MMO that has been out and had Squadrons/Guilds/whatever they call them, has in fact limited one character to one Guild...etc

So I reckon NO, one character, one squadron and if you want a new one get another account or be prepared to leave your current "Squadron".

One of the most popular MMOs today - Elder Scrolls Online. 5 guilds at the same time. Including PvP guilds, even for different factions. Have leaderboards and such. Works without problems.

 

[Braandlin]

.
Hmm, I am sorry. Apparently what i wrote was not apprehensable enough. My statement was not "copy because of copy". I wanted to say that it's actually valid to also look at other games and see what they are doing. You can find solutions there for problems which some people in this thread claim to be not solveable.
.
So if such solutions can be found, it could be possible to consider them, learn from them and apply suitably. On the other hand, i dare to point your criticism back to this thread: there are some "but it always was like that" postings in here. So blindly copying things from WoW and EVE is the way to go, but looking at newer games, with newer solutions, would be wrong?
.
I simply think that something developed in 2018 (which this is), might just be allowed to also look at games which came out in 2012, see what they did and use the good parts from that. Sorry for the sarcasm, it's not pointed directly at you, but some postings in this thread really feel like the four yorkshiremen to me.
.

Oh I agree, there is a lot of nonsense about issues that are claimed to be unsolveable. In many case that's simply not true.

But you also have to recognise that what might be right for one game is not right for another.

With the multiple modes and platforms, BGS, and approach to a living galaxy that FDev has taken and their vision for the kind of game they want, it is wrong to assume that a solution that works in a game with a different set of characteristics is the correct solution for ED.

My comments are not about what is technically possible - they are about what is the right approach for ED.

IF (and we dont know this yet, so its a big IF) FDev has a vision where in the future belonging to a guild has direct game effects then a one to one relationship between player and guild becomes a far simpler and manageable mechanic.

For example in the future...
IF your Squadron Tag defines you as allied, neutral or enemy to ships with other Tags because of the BGS faction you support. Bth CMDrs and NPCs.
IF your Squadron Tag creates rewards for your squadron or BGS faction because of the activities you do rather than requiring a transaction at a local station.

The ability to be in multiple squadrons would become complex in these situations. Not unsolvable, but you have to wonder if the benefits outweigh the effort. And the ability to ditch one Tag, and take up another to avoid being seen as an enemy would be both interesting gameplay but also seen as 'cheating' by many...

The question really is "Is the level of complexity necessary to allow players to be in multiple guilds worth the benefit it provides."

In my opinion no. But as I said in an earlier response to this thread... I am conflicted and it depends on the future direction FDev take.

 

[Sylow]

A genuine question - I see often statements that "many games allow multiple guilds", but there are named just Guild Wars 2 and Elder Scrolls Online and nothing else. What are the other major games? I don't know any, but I would like to expand my knowledge...

.
People keep bringing that up, as they're the successful implementations. I know i've been in another MMO which allowed to be in several guilds a few years ago. I just fail to remember the name. What i remember is that the game itself was such an utter mess that i only spend like two evenings there, the guild system never started to matter to me.
.
Unfortunately my google-fu fails me here. My search instead showed FF XIV as example where you can be in several guilds. Which matters little, as guilds there are something completely different there.
.
.

The question really is "Is the level of complexity necessary to allow players to be in multiple guilds worth the benefit it provides."

.
I see your point here and can only talk from my own experience. When i read that GW2 was allowing you to be in several guilds, i was just like many people in this forum: wondering how it should work, having my doubts that it would be of any use. When ESO came out with multiple guilds, i also had my doubts on the game. (And dismissed the game for the plethora of other problems it had at launch. Only after a few years, when ironing out many other problems, the game now is in a good state and i actually play it. )
.
So yes, it might be that in this game few people would use the option to be in multiple guilds. It also depends on the community to some degree. But i have made very positive experiences in games which allow me to be in several guilds.
.
See my above mentioned example, where for quite a while i was in a guild which was all about picking up and guiding new players. Without us many would've quit the game again when hitting the first harder parts. Thanks to us, they got support, learned, got better. After a while many left the training guild and migrated to one of our partner guilds. Depending on their focus, they went to a raid, PvP or trade guild, but often joined more than one of them. Some stayed as new instructors. But all of us had the benefit of having not only the beginner guild, but also other guilds of our liking at hand.
.
In a "classical" system i would've had to decide between helping newer people or being in a progress oriented guild. Being able combine things gave me the best of all options, while also being beneficial for the game.
.
In the end, it's really what the community makes out of it. The developer provides the options, the players use them. Or theoretically also don't use them, although that rarely happens. So no, there's no guarantee that guild mixing will be as helpful in this game, as i experience it elsewhere. It might fall flat, not be used and be a waste of effort. But that's just not my experience, so i personally think that it would be very welcome and would benefit the game.
.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

No to the petetion (for now). I can unerstand the arguement for multisquadrons but would want to wait a while and see how one squadron performs in the beta. Discord or other 3rd party platforms would still be the main player group communication or organisational tools in this case. I don't think FDEV see squadrons as an all incompassing player group level based suite of tools, just a level below that.

The one squadron option might work perfectly as a in game tactical/organisational tool for when actually playing! Not for keeping up with the bread and butter goings on with another squadron/player groups that you are (vaguely) affliated with. It is unlikey that a cmdr will be doing two player styles simulataneously in-game, e.g. if your exploring outside the bubble on DW2, then join a squadron related to that. If engaged in PvP or PP or want to help the Fuel Rats join a related squadron, even if it is just for a few hours, FDEV have designed it to be a fluid process.

suggestions
If there is a kind of "follow" option so you can have public messages fed into your inbox this would allow a certain level of communication, when not an active squadron member.

It would be good if cmdrs squadron history was made public or at least to adims when applications are made, this would allow admins to vet applications to various squadrons easliy.

Memebers squadron stats should also be available to other members of the squadron also, for management purposes.

 

[Wyldwiisel]

Nope if your any good and your squadron is any good then they won't mind you swapping back and forth between them

 

[Artie]

.
People keep bringing that up, as they're the successful implementations. I know i've been in another MMO which allowed to be in several guilds a few years ago. I just fail to remember the name. What i remember is that the game itself was such an utter mess that i only spend like two evenings there, the guild system never started to matter to me.
.
Unfortunately my google-fu fails me here. My search instead showed FF XIV as example where you can be in several guilds. Which matters little, as guilds there are something completely different there.
.
.

Thanks for the reply. Even FFXIV allows just one guild membership (it's called a Free company there).
I was just surprised that many statements are trying to imply that "single guild membership is an obsolete design" and "modern games have multiple guilds membership" but, in fact, I am unable to recall any other successful game than GW2 and ESO who did it. Most of the games are still sticking with the classic "one guild, one loyalty" principle and multiple guild membership is rather an exception than a rule.

I have no doubts that the "multiple guilds membership" may work for many games and may be beneficial to the players and to the game itself, but that heavily depends on the game design. Both games mentioned above did it well. But, I have also no doubts that multiple guilds membership is a huge pain for many complex mechanics and it brings many problems that needs to be solved, which sometimes simply doesn't worth the costs and effort for the limited benefits.

 

[NeilF]

Pick your main affiliation in game and use Discord for the side projects as before. In fact I believe that the new features are not powerfull enough to replace Discord for the main squad either...

It's all about the tag and you can't wear more than one anyways.

...and again... Let's consider there is an in game reason/perk why you'd want to be affiliated to a Squadron? eg: In the months to come Fleet Carriers add more gameplay or a bonus?

So with a one Squadron limitation, you're tied to your Powerplay Squadron, and then while away on a Distant Suns type exploration journey you can't enjoy or make use of the Fleet Carriers being used for it.

What is unfair or untenable about wanting to be a member of a Powerplay Squadron and an Exploration Squadron? Or indeed a couple of other non-Powerplay Squadrions etc. What does this break? What's the issue?

And ultimately, if Discord is a viable alternative to what FD plan to offer in Squadrons, then why bother?


Note: I'm more than happy to wait to see how Squadrons pan out, BUT, getting a design and its setup right in the beginning can save a lot of pain/effort later on. And it's indeed possible for a "poor choice" to be a limitation forever one it's in use.

 

[NeilF]

One of the most popular MMOs today - Elder Scrolls Online. 5 guilds at the same time. Including PvP guilds, even for different factions. Have leaderboards and such. Works without problems.

Interesting... I'd personally see no issue with limiting five squadrons to only include one Powerplay Squadron for example? Would you?

So you could only join one dedicated Powerplay Squadron, but four other types... etc...

I'd also suggest that as you're a mmeber of that Powerplay Squadron, you're assigned to that Powerplay Character while acting for the Squadron, but none, when not (ie: flying under one of your four others)?

 

[Nitross]

Name one MMO where you can be in more than one guild (cos guilds is what we're basically talking about). I'm not just being flippant here, I genuinely don't know if there is one. I suspect not, because it's a bad idea. Those inclined would just abuse such a system. If you think the complaining about griefers is bad now, just image how it would be if they sabotaged someone's squadron.

Guild Wars 2 allows you to be a member of up to 5 different guilds at the same time. You can only "represent" one guild at a time, but this basically only change what tag you display next to your name and you can change it freely at any time. You have access to all 5 guild chats all the time.

Also, limiting player to only one "guild" or squadron won't stop anyone from joining one for sabotage; they can just leave and rejoin their old squadron or just use an alt account just for that.

 

[Devlin-Darkside]

I reckon about every MMO that has been out and had Squadrons/Guilds/whatever they call them, has in fact limited one character to one Guild...etc

So I reckon NO, one character, one squadron and if you want a new one get another account or be prepared to leave your current "Squadron".

Most MMOs have multiple character slots, ED has one.

Maybe its time for ED to have multiple CMD slots per account, at least I would be able to have an explorer out in the black and another to play with mates in the bubble.

 

[Thatchinho]

Yes.

And here's why (originally posted back in May, here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...hip-of-more-than-one-squadron-why-it-s-needed )

1. - Coherence of the in-game universe.

In my view, being restricted to being a member of a single squadron would represent a decrease in the coherence of the in-game universe. Personally I feel I can generally come up with in-game contextual reasons for many many things, but being restricted to a single squadron would be a struggle. Why would there be a set in-universe rule that cmdrs could only be members of one squadron, who would have set it, who would enforce it, and so on and so forth. Even assuming the PF did all that originally for some bizarre reason, then members would have lobbied for change, and people would have found ways around it.

2. - Adherence to the nature of the in-game universe.

People (not players) being part of different groups/organisations is a thing in the in-game universe. As are, for want of a better phrase, 'loose affiliations' both in terms of that being the nature of some groups/organisations and interactions between groups/organisations.

3. - Adherence to the way people already play.

Various people already play as part of multiple groups/organisations. Blocking that from happening in-game would be a very retrograde step, and would be a substantial negative for squadrons and the game.

So, here in my view is how things should be in principle:

- No universal rule. Allow multiple squadron membership as a general policy.
- Membership policies for individual squadrons should be set by the Squadron owner/leaders/members (as appropriate for the nature of the squadron). If they want their members to be only part of their squadron, that should be up to them.

Further:
- Enforcement of membership policies should be down to the people in the squadron, it shouldn't be hard coded into the game.
- Cmdrs should be able to choose to whether to make their membership of a squadron public or to keep it secret/private. (With policies over how an individual Squadron views whether membership of it should be public or private being again set by the Squadron owner/leaders/members.)

 

[NeilF]

Yes.

And here's why (originally posted back in May, here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...hip-of-more-than-one-squadron-why-it-s-needed )

1. - Coherence of the in-game universe.

In my view, being restricted to being a member of a single squadron would represent a decrease in the coherence of the in-game universe. Personally I feel I can generally come up with in-game contextual reasons for many many things, but being restricted to a single squadron would be a struggle. Why would there be a set in-universe rule that cmdrs could only be members of one squadron, who would have set it, who would enforce it, and so on and so forth. Even assuming the PF did all that originally for some bizarre reason, then members would have lobbied for change, and people would have found ways around it.

2. - Adherence to the nature of the in-game universe.

People (not players) being part of different groups/organisations is a thing in the in-game universe. As are, for want of a better phrase, 'loose affiliations' both in terms of that being the nature of some groups/organisations and interactions between groups/organisations.

3. - Adherence to the way people already play.

Various people already play as part of multiple groups/organisations. Blocking that from happening in-game would be a very retrograde step, and would be a substantial negative for squadrons and the game.

So, here in my view is how things should be in principle:

- No universal rule. Allow multiple squadron membership as a general policy.
- Membership policies for individual squadrons should be set by the Squadron owner/leaders/members (as appropriate for the nature of the squadron). If they want their members to be only part of their squadron, that should be up to them.

Further:
- Enforcement of membership policies should be down to the people in the squadron, it shouldn't be hard coded into the game.
- Cmdrs should be able to choose to whether to make their membership of a squadron public or to keep it secret/private. (With policies over how an individual Squadron views whether membership of it should be public or private being again set by the Squadron owner/leaders/members.)

Agreed...

Although I'd be more than happy to see membership to only one Powerplay Squadron to be permitted etc, and for that affiliation to be binding. eg: You cannot join a different Power, and when you're flying for the Squadron in question, you are automatically affiliated to the Power in question etc etc. Make it mean a logical consequence

 

[Han Zulu]

Yes.

And here's why (originally posted back in May, here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...hip-of-more-than-one-squadron-why-it-s-needed )

1. - Coherence of the in-game universe.

In my view, being restricted to being a member of a single squadron would represent a decrease in the coherence of the in-game universe. Personally I feel I can generally come up with in-game contextual reasons for many many things, but being restricted to a single squadron would be a struggle. Why would there be a set in-universe rule that cmdrs could only be members of one squadron, who would have set it, who would enforce it, and so on and so forth. Even assuming the PF did all that originally for some bizarre reason, then members would have lobbied for change, and people would have found ways around it.

It's the same problem as having a price controlled mission system that spans the galaxy and even over the borders of super powers. They all have agreed on a pricing system on missions that's very arbitrary in general, but somehow applies to every station, even all the way to Colonia. There's a cabal controlling the galaxy, I tell ya'.

 

[Thatchinho]

Agreed...

Although I'd be more than happy to see membership to only one Powerplay Squadron to be permitted etc, and for that affiliation to be binding. eg: You cannot join a different Power, and when you're flying for the Squadron in question, you are automatically affiliated to the Power in question etc etc. Make it mean a logical consequence

Yeah, agreed, that would make complete sense and tackle a few of the potential issues of having membership of multiple squadrons.