The advent of “Squadrons” in Elite now five and a half years ago ushered in a golden age of player interaction and large group involvement in galactic events. “Player groups” and “Player Factions” could now fly together formally as a unit rather than as an obscure entity on the forums. New groups could coalesce more easily and established groups had access to amazing new tools for networking, monitoring their in game player minor faction (PMF), and competing with other groups via the Squadron Leaderboards. This exceptional development correlated well with a peak era of community engagement and player activity. However, it was not without some minor technical flaws and items of frustration for many squadrons, specifically one of great importance to many squadrons enthused about both Powerplay (PP) and optimal management of the Background Simulation (BGS) for their preferred power by means of supporting a PMF.
Put briefly, the squadron management interface does not allow certain squadrons to pledge their support to both their preferred Powerplay patron and their PMF if the “Superpower” affiliations are discordant.
What follows is the briefest explanation of PP 1.0 “BGS Ethos” mechanics that I can manage and a technical explanation of the “Squadron Management” button that can and should be fixed in the PP 2.0 update. As Arf eloquently stated on the stream, this is a technical problem that likely has been missed or is unheard of by the current community managers and development team.
Powerplay 1.0 features “Ethos” considerations for each power that impact preparation, expansion and fortification. The proportion of certain local government types present and exploited can drastically impact the amount of player effort necessary to expand, fortify, or undermine a PP 1.0 control system. Quite often, the most situationally useful governments do NOT correlate with the superpower affiliation of the PP patron. Some examples:
The current “Squadron Management” interface does not allow ANY squadron to “pledge squadron” to a PP patron of a different superpower affiliation than their PMF or vice versa. Many squadrons that created their PP relevant PMF years prior to “Squadrons” release are faced with the currently irreversible choice of pledging EITHER for this PMF or their PP patron. This effectively locks them out of earning points towards one of the leaderboards. It also forces them to forego the valuable “Squadron Allegiance” menu that is very helpful for BGS surveillance and maintenance if they pledge to their power rather than their PMF.
This negligent and persistent disparity completely disregards the purpose of PP “Ethos” and is punitive to those that planned their PMF creation or adoption with powerplay utility in mind. We humbly implore the current community management and development team to acknowledge and eliminate this simple technical problem to further improve the accessibility of PP 2.0 to all of their enthused pilots!
TL DR- Removal of the “hard stop” inability to pledge in the “Squadron Management” page to a Powerplay patron of different superpower than the squadron minor faction and vice versa must be removed with the PP 2.0 update.
Linked issue tracker post can be found here:
issues.frontierstore.net
Warmest regard to all,
CMDR Alanzo Firenze and Celestial Light Brigade
Put briefly, the squadron management interface does not allow certain squadrons to pledge their support to both their preferred Powerplay patron and their PMF if the “Superpower” affiliations are discordant.
What follows is the briefest explanation of PP 1.0 “BGS Ethos” mechanics that I can manage and a technical explanation of the “Squadron Management” button that can and should be fixed in the PP 2.0 update. As Arf eloquently stated on the stream, this is a technical problem that likely has been missed or is unheard of by the current community managers and development team.
Powerplay 1.0 features “Ethos” considerations for each power that impact preparation, expansion and fortification. The proportion of certain local government types present and exploited can drastically impact the amount of player effort necessary to expand, fortify, or undermine a PP 1.0 control system. Quite often, the most situationally useful governments do NOT correlate with the superpower affiliation of the PP patron. Some examples:
- An Imperial patronage faction can be situationally useful to Federal Zachary Hudson.
- An Alliance corporation can be useful for both expansion and fortification of Federal Felicia Winters.
- Obligatorily independent communist, cooperative and confederate governments are the only governments favorable for fortification of Imperial Aisling Duval.
The current “Squadron Management” interface does not allow ANY squadron to “pledge squadron” to a PP patron of a different superpower affiliation than their PMF or vice versa. Many squadrons that created their PP relevant PMF years prior to “Squadrons” release are faced with the currently irreversible choice of pledging EITHER for this PMF or their PP patron. This effectively locks them out of earning points towards one of the leaderboards. It also forces them to forego the valuable “Squadron Allegiance” menu that is very helpful for BGS surveillance and maintenance if they pledge to their power rather than their PMF.
This negligent and persistent disparity completely disregards the purpose of PP “Ethos” and is punitive to those that planned their PMF creation or adoption with powerplay utility in mind. We humbly implore the current community management and development team to acknowledge and eliminate this simple technical problem to further improve the accessibility of PP 2.0 to all of their enthused pilots!
TL DR- Removal of the “hard stop” inability to pledge in the “Squadron Management” page to a Powerplay patron of different superpower than the squadron minor faction and vice versa must be removed with the PP 2.0 update.
Linked issue tracker post can be found here:
Issue Tracker
issues.frontierstore.net
Warmest regard to all,
CMDR Alanzo Firenze and Celestial Light Brigade
Last edited:
