General Private groups for Squadrons.

[Dharrch Streynjer]

Private groups seem like a good idea until you find that you rely on them for a faction or squadron to meet in a safe environment and the orignal commander has left the game, or deleted his saved commander.
To rectify this issue a private group could be automatically initiated on the creation of a squadron. Any member of the squadron would automatically have access to the group, and the group ownership be passed on wiith the squadron when the originator no longer wishes to retain responsibility for it.

Simples

o7

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

and what would stop the group from just having another person start one?

 

[kurush]

and what would stop the group from just having another person start one?

I would guess having to add a hundred of people manually might be a bit of an obstacle here. Groups being tied 1:1 to commanders is not the best design. Groups for squadrons would certainly be better and more manageable.

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

It's also annoying when a new player needs to be added to the group and the founder is offline.

o7

 

[Para Handy]

Do what we did - buy another account, call that commander your squadron name, create PG. ( You can pass-on accounts via changing email in their frontier store account details I believe - not had to do that.)

BTW - I like the OP's suggestion if there was a method F D could put in place.

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

Do what we did - buy another account, call that commander your squadron name, create PG. ( You can pass-on accounts via changing email in their frontier store account details I believe - not had to do that.)

BTW - I like the OP's suggestion if there was a method F D could put in place.

I've always been put off by their statement in the EULA

2. Grant and Scope of Licence

2.1 Subject to your compliance with the terms of this EULA, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, revocable, limited licence to use the Game. You are permitted to:
(a) load the Game into and Use it on a single device which is under your custody and control and which meets the specifications referred to in the manual for your own private and domestic Use;
(b) transfer the Game from one such device to another; provided the Game is Used on only one device at any one time and any device on which it is Used is under your custody and control at the time of Use.

Note the phrase "non-transferable"

o7

 

[ebbrell]

Yeah shame we arent all in open, groups mean you dont see anyone. I spend loads of time in open I dont see many people probably down to everyone being in a group.

I see them in shinrater and engineer locations that's all really

 

[Para Handy]

I've always been put off by their statement in the EULA

Note the phrase "non-transferable"

o7

I agree but the account is linked to an email address - changed email address need not be to a different individual. So in actuality, how are they going to prove that dippy(at)gmail.com is a different person to anotherdippy(at)gmail.com for example. So to me it is a moot point, they get their money for the account purchase, it is not as if it is depriving them of another purchase as the PG name is tied to the commander name which is set in stone and cannot be changed so another purchase could not have that commander name and hence PG name.

 

[znôrt]

I agree but the account is linked to an email address - changed email address need not be to a different individual. So in actuality, how are they going to prove that dippy(at)gmail.com is a different person to anotherdippy(at)gmail.com for example. So to me it is a moot point, they get their money for the account purchase, it is not as if it is depriving them of another purchase as the PG name is tied to the commander name which is set in stone and cannot be changed so another purchase could not have that commander name and hence PG name.

you are basically saying you disregard the tos because (you think) it cannot be enforced. i understand you do that only in games, that would be a risky move in court

but what really strikes me is that you solve developer shortcomings by ... giving them even more money. that's negative selection, that's why we can't have nice things!

 

[Stigbob]

I've always been put off by their statement in the EULA

Note the phrase "non-transferable"

o7

Their main focus on that would be preventing resale, they probably wouldn't give a monkeys about some players using one as a squadron figurehead.

 

[Mohrgan]

I could see a Private Group generated along with a new Squadron. Access granted to Squadron Commander. Then allow transfer or sharing of Command. It seems like a good idea to me.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

you are basically saying you disregard the tos because (you think) it cannot be enforced. i understand you do that only in games, that would be a risky move in court

but what really strikes me is that you solve developer shortcomings by ... giving them even more money. that's negative selection, that's why we can't have nice things!

I doubt it would be worth the negative publicity and legal fees to sue over using a copy of the game in this way. Especially when it’s not even a clear violation.

while it may be against the “letter” of the EULA, it doesn’t violate the spirit of the EULA.

 

[znôrt]

I doubt it would be worth the negative publicity and legal fees to sue over using a copy of the game in this way. Especially when it’s not even a clear violation.

while it may be against the “letter” of the EULA, it doesn’t violate the spirit of the EULA.

i doubt you would even get an advisory for that. yeah, i was just being picky. maybe because opinions here tend to be strong about eulas like they were some form of sacred scripture. honestly, i will wipe my anatomy with eulas myself however it suits me without a problem! capitalist laws? catch me if you can!

the other bit was serious, though. don't reward poor work! sure i know that's a lost battle ...

 

[Para Handy]

.......
but what really strikes me is that you solve developer shortcomings by ... giving them even more money. that's negative selection, that's why we can't have nice things!

It isn't "solving" the shortcomings - it is finding a workaround. (Basically the "feature" of squadrons is like many of FD's bright ideas - badly thought-out and poorly implemented.)

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

Well let's hope that somebody in FDev is paying attention to this thread at least.
You never know. They may even be able to recognise a good idea when they see one

 

[ZeroAi]

Private groups seem like a good idea until you find that you rely on them for a faction or squadron to meet in a safe environment and the orignal commander has left the game, or deleted his saved commander.
To rectify this issue a private group could be automatically initiated on the creation of a squadron. Any member of the squadron would automatically have access to the group, and the group ownership be passed on wiith the squadron when the originator no longer wishes to retain responsibility for it.

Simples

o7

Great Idea!

 

[ebbrell]

So we really need more groups,

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

So we really need more groups,

I firmly believe that this would lead to less, better organised groups.
However, the answer is yes.

o7

 

[Hooplah]

Hundreds of groups on Inara and yes some CMDRs quit playing the game. It is pretty easy take over one of these groups then go for it. Why the CMDRs left per a lack of player response is something to work on.

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

Hundreds of groups on Inara and yes some CMDRs quit playing the game. It is pretty easy take over one of these groups then go for it. Why the CMDRs left per a lack of player response is something to work on.

INARA Groups are nothing to do with Private groups in game.
Whether a Squadron gets sufficient player support or not, is also irrelevant.
Players will always come and go, they're a fickle bunch. However wouldn't it be nice to know that while your squadron lives there will always be a place where you can meet your squad mates in safety, and that doesn't rely on the vagiaries of a part time commander with ADHD?

o7