If there is one thing that Elite Dangerous needs desperately is a credit sink PCM could provide that
Squadrons and Proper colonization mechanics
- Thread starter Vicktore Beskor
- Start date
What decade old game are you talking about please list all the games that you feel are like any of the PCM ideas I have suggested. Please make sure your list is very accurate.
Squadrons are not true fleet mechanics.
As for the concept of direct player involvement in BGS expansion activities - myself and others are opposed to the general principles of what you are proposing. The player should not have ANY involvement in directly deciding how the BGS expands - that does not preclude some other expansion assistance possibilities through missions but it is the underlying BGS and FD that should control the how, why, and where of things in the main.
Ultimately, as soon as you allow a player to drive the expansion mechanics you open up a can of worms that should never be opened in an MMO context IMO.
As for prior games with similar mechanics to that you describe - Just look at the proper 4X games out there: EvE (in the MMO context), X-Series (in the single-player context). You may also want to include No-Mans-Sky, and to a similar degree Spore.
Last edited:
Your current proposal, when viewed as an extension of the Squadron feature, is essentially the same as what you see in Guilds/Fleets/Cults from other games, only using the dialect of E|D to describe it. I am not going to be drawn into a debate on the specific minutia between your proposal and the mechanics of other games.
Suffice it to say, I oppose the notion of Squadrons growing much beyond the Tags, and Communication tools expected in the Q4 release. E|D does not need the bloat nor the rush to ownership you largely see in other games. Let's see how the Squadron Carrier does as a money sink, and what it does to E|D's dynamics, before we crown a King/Queen. Ok?
The should be BGS neutral, merely a tool for players IMO. I can potentially see how they could be exploited by larger groups but IMO they should not be balanced as resource/money sinks.
As a solo player, as it stands squadrons are of no use to me. Now if I'm allowed to buy a carrier and build my own rabbit hole somewhere. I'd be all for that.
As long as any player made colony was made at a minimum of 10,000 ly away from the bubble. FD owns the bubble, no one else. Also then FD wouldn't be dropping a pmf in the middle of the faction I supported and throwing a years work out the window.
As long as any player made colony was made at a minimum of 10,000 ly away from the bubble. FD owns the bubble, no one else. Also then FD wouldn't be dropping a pmf in the middle of the faction I supported and throwing a years work out the window.
I agree, but it is sure to have an effect on a Commander's credit balances, and the economy of near by systems.
FD owns the whole galaxy - the bubble has expanded since release, and a second (third if you include Maia) bubble focal point has been added out in Colonia.
Depends - probably only in so far as the owning squadron may focus their activities around where ever their carrier happens to be at any given time. But I expect this to only be a concern for larger squadrons - a good reason for FD to limit squadron sizes IMO.
As for credit balances, it would be hard to say - but I would expect it to be mostly credit neutral depending on what the squadron does with it.
I sincerely hope the Carrier doesn't turn out to be credit neutral. I hope, and expect it to be a supremely costly venture with continuous running costs. The effects of a carrier on local economies is exactly the data we need before pressing on into more fanciful Squadron mechanics. Walk before we run, as it were.
Goose4291
Banned
You know the rules Vicktore! No content for the rest of us.
If you want to stuff, you need to get triple elite rated and then use your back-channels to get your bespoke player group content!
Yes, of course. I didn't think I needed to expand on every piece of game created property. My bad.
I fully expect squadron mechanics to be purely a player organisational thing - nothing more, nothing less - no player-to-player economies, no player owned/controlled facilities that either generate or consume credits. All credit consumption should be based on direct usage (e.g. jumping to a new location, repairing, refuelling, rearming of player ships - the latter an alternative to NPC stations). No material or cargo storage/retrieval, nothing that could directly impact the BGS.
Fingers crossed.
I hope you are right. That is the jist of the consensus I gather, after all of the conversations had on the subjects.
Hello, again, CMDR Ray Xarez here,
I'm seeing a lot of similar rebuttal to the idea of colonization, simply it being too reminiscent of EvE style gameplay. That being of system domination, and control focused around a player controlled entity, or player influenced entity. Now, this technically already occurs in the Back Ground System (BGS) of Elite: Dangerous with the introductions of Player Factions (PF). And to be honest, I am happy to see people being so wary of the introduction of mechanics that could alter the feel of the game so far.
However, lets quickly remove a few points and counter points:
1) Adding in colonization DOES give PF's (or player influenced NPC factions) more power in the BGS. No this isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the factions still operate like all other NPC factions and follow all the rules of normal systems. (Ie, Solo Commanders and Factioned Commanders (enemy or friend) are all treated exactly the same).
2) Elite (with the introduction of Squadrons) will no longer be JUST about the solo commander. Wing missions were added for group play, altering the mission board mechanics and how we can choose to interact with the existing mechanics. You can expect Squadrons to alter some aspect of the games base mechanics, and alter how we CAN CHOOSE to interact with existing mechanics. Elite: Dangerous is evolving, but that does not mean Elite will lose it's unique feel.
3) Taking mechanics from existing games like EvE isn't a bad thing. A lot of the most innovative, inspiring, and acclaimed games have taken pre-existing mechanics from other successful video games and integrated them as part of their gameplay, hell, they've even improved them, and those improvements made them what they are. What matters is doing it RIGHT.
Now, I am 100% behind the eventual addition of colonization. However, that is only because I see a potentiality in the addition of Squadrons, that makes colonization possible in such a way that doesn't exclude the Solo Commander. And that is the Squadrons should be used to REPLACE Player Factions if Colonization is to be added.
My reasoning is this: Player Factions were the first introduction by F. Dev. of a group play based mechanic. A mechanic available so groups of players could play together for a common goal. The next addition was Power Play. It's no secret that F. Dev. really wants people to get behind the Political Factions more. So I can see Squadron mechanics replacing and improving on the bare-bones Player Faction mechanic, and elevating the BGS into Power Play.
If a group of players or a Squadron were to focus on a single node of power play (and it's surrounding systems) to increase the political prominence of a local political power over the area, and increase the trade of the area by doing missions, exploration, etc. in the process; that node would be worth more to the Major Political Power. Thus generating more than it costs to maintain (and also increasing it's value to other rivals).
Colonization (roughly as Vicktore envisioned it) fits into this by creating new systems, and potential nodes for Major Political Factions to expand into. Either to cut a faction off and surround and encase them, or to garner more resources. This way, even a Solo Commander could aid in the expansion of a system, by providing resources needed to create new orbital stations or ground settlements. This would also generate more organic community goals.
Now I know this veers away from Vicktore's original idea of colonization being controlled by a Player Faction, but it does still incorporate the base mechanic OF Colonization while removing the player controlled element that so many of you seem to have a problem with as it is otherwise very reminiscent of EvE styled gameplay and the baggage that particular mechanic seems to come with.
I'm seeing a lot of similar rebuttal to the idea of colonization, simply it being too reminiscent of EvE style gameplay. That being of system domination, and control focused around a player controlled entity, or player influenced entity. Now, this technically already occurs in the Back Ground System (BGS) of Elite: Dangerous with the introductions of Player Factions (PF). And to be honest, I am happy to see people being so wary of the introduction of mechanics that could alter the feel of the game so far.
However, lets quickly remove a few points and counter points:
1) Adding in colonization DOES give PF's (or player influenced NPC factions) more power in the BGS. No this isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the factions still operate like all other NPC factions and follow all the rules of normal systems. (Ie, Solo Commanders and Factioned Commanders (enemy or friend) are all treated exactly the same).
2) Elite (with the introduction of Squadrons) will no longer be JUST about the solo commander. Wing missions were added for group play, altering the mission board mechanics and how we can choose to interact with the existing mechanics. You can expect Squadrons to alter some aspect of the games base mechanics, and alter how we CAN CHOOSE to interact with existing mechanics. Elite: Dangerous is evolving, but that does not mean Elite will lose it's unique feel.
3) Taking mechanics from existing games like EvE isn't a bad thing. A lot of the most innovative, inspiring, and acclaimed games have taken pre-existing mechanics from other successful video games and integrated them as part of their gameplay, hell, they've even improved them, and those improvements made them what they are. What matters is doing it RIGHT.
Now, I am 100% behind the eventual addition of colonization. However, that is only because I see a potentiality in the addition of Squadrons, that makes colonization possible in such a way that doesn't exclude the Solo Commander. And that is the Squadrons should be used to REPLACE Player Factions if Colonization is to be added.
My reasoning is this: Player Factions were the first introduction by F. Dev. of a group play based mechanic. A mechanic available so groups of players could play together for a common goal. The next addition was Power Play. It's no secret that F. Dev. really wants people to get behind the Political Factions more. So I can see Squadron mechanics replacing and improving on the bare-bones Player Faction mechanic, and elevating the BGS into Power Play.
If a group of players or a Squadron were to focus on a single node of power play (and it's surrounding systems) to increase the political prominence of a local political power over the area, and increase the trade of the area by doing missions, exploration, etc. in the process; that node would be worth more to the Major Political Power. Thus generating more than it costs to maintain (and also increasing it's value to other rivals).
Colonization (roughly as Vicktore envisioned it) fits into this by creating new systems, and potential nodes for Major Political Factions to expand into. Either to cut a faction off and surround and encase them, or to garner more resources. This way, even a Solo Commander could aid in the expansion of a system, by providing resources needed to create new orbital stations or ground settlements. This would also generate more organic community goals.
Now I know this veers away from Vicktore's original idea of colonization being controlled by a Player Faction, but it does still incorporate the base mechanic OF Colonization while removing the player controlled element that so many of you seem to have a problem with as it is otherwise very reminiscent of EvE styled gameplay and the baggage that particular mechanic seems to come with.
Last edited:
Totally disagree, can't agree with ANY part of your view point.
Giving PFs more power over the BGS is probably the worst thing that could happen.
The addition of Squadrons does not change the fundamental nature of ED, they are not what you think they are.
Taking mechanics from games like EvE is an astoundingly bad idea - the likes of EvE and WoW are the malignant cancers of MMOs IMO.
What Squadrons are as going to be released is likely just an expanded version of the friends list showing up on a panel vs. pressing ESC. But it may not stop there. A lot of people are speculating what it could become, so I figured I might as well. We all have ideas, but that is all they are: Ideas. What the devs do is up to them.
And taking mechanics verbatim from another game is never a good idea, you never improve, I'm saying take inspiration from what is old, and make something new. I agree that both EvE and WoW are dated, and I've never PLAYED either. But you can always look back at the mechanics and how they fit the world they were released in, then look forward and think of a BETTER way to adapt.
Also, what I proposed didn't just give more power to PF's, I talked about eliminating them and replacing them with squadrons in a manner that didn't exclude the Solo Commander. Anything a Squadron can do, a player can do alone, it just takes longer. Thats how the game is now, so I don't imagine them changing to too much from what it is now, especially since what it is now has been pretty successful so far.
No matter how we all feel squadrons are coming soon to elite dangerous. PCM would take advantage of Squadron gameplay. There is nothing wrong with wanting squadrons to have meaningful gameplay options. I would not want anything to gate solo commanders out of anything.
So instead of debating about why PCM should or should not be in the game the debate should be about how to make it fare to both squadrons and solo commanders. It is my so humble opinion that more gameplay options in a game the better. PCM gives more commanders different job opportunities and add more strategy to the game if done correctly.
As a commander of elite dangerous I will always try and help the developers come up with new and innovative ways to improve the game I so enjoy. I feel that is what a responsible participant of this community should do.
So instead of debating about why PCM should or should not be in the game the debate should be about how to make it fare to both squadrons and solo commanders. It is my so humble opinion that more gameplay options in a game the better. PCM gives more commanders different job opportunities and add more strategy to the game if done correctly.
As a commander of elite dangerous I will always try and help the developers come up with new and innovative ways to improve the game I so enjoy. I feel that is what a responsible participant of this community should do.
Last edited:
Thank you Ray for your sensible comment
Hmm... so basically pushing into a system with a directed colonization rather than an undirectable BGS push... that might be nice.
I see a problem though, almost all systems around us are already at max factions. So we wouldn't be able to get our faction in there without kicking an existing one out. That can be a major pain. So many things can block it happening and if the faction even pokes its head over the boundary, they escape the eviction. Hope FD look at that mechanic at some point.