Vanguards / Squadron rework screencaps from stream......

[Stealthie]

This is again in part running in to the "range of player ability" question, though, where there's a really large overlap between the capacities of a single top player and an entire mid-sized mid-effort group that there isn't really a clean distinction. There's plenty of content which is effectively group-only in the game already if you're not a 1-in-10,000 player (which a disproportionate number of forum posters are, sure)

Most Thargoid Interceptors were intended as group content (even the Cyclops, originally). Yes, with a fully engineered ship and a lot of practice at the right technique, some people could take on Hydras solo, but most people couldn't. So is that group content or solo?
(I'm not a top-quality combat player by a long way so even normal High CZs I'd treat as group content - sure, with ammo synthesis I can get through them and my ship's in no actual danger throughout, but they're just a slog, whereas with two people they last a fun amount of time and have more interesting challenges than the Mediums so I wouldn't pick anything else)

The scale of Powerplay effort required to shift a system by one state is multiple weeks for a top 10% player - or several months work for a top 50% player. It's intended to be and usually is done cooperatively but there's nothing strictly stopping one player doing it alone and there are a few players per Power who can do a system a week single-handedly (though literally only a few). Multiply that up to the scale of an entire 750-system Power and even the top individual's effort is a rounding error.

It's certainly technically possible to haul an entire Orbis' of cargo in the 4-week deadline, but most players do not have the spare time or patience to do that and it's clearly intended to be a group thing. The bigger multi-system projects like the bridge to Orion or to Lagoon are very definitely major collaborative activities.

For the sake of defining "group content" I'd say that if something can be done by a lone player (however tenacious or skilled they might need to be) it doesn't really qualify as group content.

The reality, of course, is far more nuanced.
Any activity can be "group content" if there's some benefit/enjoyment to be had from a group of people doing it together.

The point of the post you quoted is that trying to fulfill both objectives (creating group activities and making all activities accessible to lone players) IS going to limit the potential of those activities - especially the ones aimed at groups.

ED is in a fairly good place right now (IMO) so maybe this is a good time to go all-in on creating some activities exclusive to groups rather than just giving players some new toys and saying "Hey, now you can do the same stuff you've been doing on your own in groups".

It's kind of like showing up at a tennis court with a big bag of racquets and balls and saying "Hey guys, now you can play tennis in teams!"
Chances are, the players are just going to ignore the bag and carry on with their game.

 

[Koma Pahu]

Problem we had, with ED, was there was such a big time-overhead to upgrading ships.

You rock up at a game of BF2, select your role and your weapons and you're away, with exactly the same tools as everybody else in the game.
With ED, you show up in an un-engineered Eagle and you're going to get exploded by somebody, even in another Eagle, if their ship is engineered.

Back when I was playing ED with my mates, I felt like I was "cheating" simply by playing for an extra couple of hours, hauling cargo to earn credits so I could buy better modules.

Obviously, it's not really ED's fault that some people might not be willing to make the effort to upgrade a ship but it's likely to happen nonetheless.

I don’t think BF2 (assuming you’re talking about Battlefield 2) is a fair comparison, they’re very different games with very different styles.

I mean just learning to take off and fly out of the mail slot takes longer than learning almost everything in BF2. It’s intentionally fast paced, frantic gameplay - something that Helldivers 2 (completely missed the first one) has ramped right up.

ED is a much slower paced, longer game, not a 10 minute battle. And it’s also not a game for everyone. - Much like Eve isn’t a game for me despite having lots of things I like in it.

I’m going to skip the bit about how rare it is to be taken out by another player and focus on the engineering.

It’s definitely an annoying amount of time if you’re running around trying to unlock them all at once, and it is a lonely time too due to the complete lack of social tools while your doing it - although it would be possible for someone to help out with some of the unlocks.

I do think having experienced guild members taking you under their wing makes the transition from early to mid game easier, encouraging you to do certain quests explaining how things work. Otherwise the mid game often just becomes a race to get to the level where you can compete with the big boys.

To bring it back to ED, shooting shards for mats would be much more fun, and therefore less of a grind, with a Squadron pal than doing alone.

 

[Jmanis]

I agree with all of what you wrote, just want to correct one small part at the end: for many aspects of the game, i don't mind if their payout is lower than others. It might not be the optimal way to get ahead, but it still works. Some refinement could be done, but alas... i am not really mad at the game for that.

I'd clarify: I'm not after optimal. I'm after sensible. The game's logic around this is not sensible at all... but I've given too many examples of the insanity that goes on in other threads to derail this one with that stuff.

Having a squadron give me a few more biscuits for a particular activity won't resolve the core issues the game suffers from.

Edit: To my comment on tissue samples for things like molluscs, all I can assume is they got completely forgotten about by FD when they made exobio hemorrhage credits. It defies logic.

 

[Fizzatron]

The same space magic that allows you to store 40 ships on a fleet carrier.

Not really:

Don't take the above literally, I know there's different sized ships etc.. but storage can be flexible in ways that only make sense when it comes to the purpose of storage.

I'm surprised that magic pockets for materials wasn't your go to instead of that as it's a better rebuttal. As a compromise I can overlook the magic pockets for mats but would still prefer there to be a storage option for them separate from your CMDR, something that would resolve the logical discontinuity. This is a storage fudge to reduce the back and forth it would otherwise need to collect etc.. a compromise that makes sense in terms of gameplay and which can be fixed later as I mentioned above. But this is an entirely different situation where the magic pockets have been reversed, and it's the galaxy that is now yielding to an arbitrary on/off position of a setting in an option screen.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a hard line approach to everything being 100% true to reality, it's a sci-fi space game where time dilation isn't a thing and breaking causality is taken for granted. But just because one fudge is acceptable doesn't translate to it being a free for all, it's a fine line IMO, and of course, subject to differing viewpoints on where that is. I think it goes beyond what I can rationally rationalize. I will say it's not a dealbreaker for me personally, but it pushes things further towards a nonsensical realm that doesn't really suit the game.

This isn't the case with all of the perks, some can be explained as preferential discounts etc.. but anything that God-hands the game enviroment is by its nature outside of the game, far more than some claim visiting third party websites for information does.

 

[Fizzatron]

I don't understand why would anybody take that ships This is fun killer. Like, if I get everything made by others, than what left to play ?

For some it might do that, granted, but I think it's more likely that after seeing how engineered stuff works it would prompt one to get it for themselves as it's likely that the ship won't always be available to use.

 

[Fizzatron]

... and allows an unlimited number of other CMDRs to dock - possibly with full cargo holds.

Instancing is effectively an imposed technical limit to get around not having a single shard galaxy. We all know how that's going in t'other game. It's not really a choice to make in the same way as gaining the equivalent of gaining a hidden Fortune enchantment on your mining laser. I'm not suggesting a no-compromise approach, and you won't find me having that position at any point, I've defended some handwavium as essential, as above, but this to me is quite a different scenario than that.

 

[Fizzatron]

As long as my current squadron remains, everything else is a distant concern regarding the update.

I would prefer, though, that instead of the same carrier with glued on features, that they would have implemented something unique instead. Maybe even include the original carrier feature such as a sub-ship that the owner can fly around in while the body of the carrier remains.

Also maybe something to make personal carriers not be required to have the mandatory services that make it persistent to non owner instances. I'd much prefer to have personal carriers be optionally configured to be personal to just the owner and not be under the limits of the backend server systems persistant station-like assets are. Ie. No jump timer, no showing up on system maps for other userso no limits of how many in a system and can be damaged if attacked (an attack that can only happen in the owner's instance). Even better if they revamp personal carriers completely, make them half the size with only 1 landing pad of each size and make it fully flyable with configurable hardpoints and the ablity to land on planets but not dock anywhere. This could also be a way to customize into a dredger.

Basically it would be cooler in my opinion to really differentiate the squad carrier from what would then be a personal carrier. letting both focus on their target audience.

You mean something like this?

I hear you, but I think the Squadron Fleet Carriers are pretty cool and am glad we will now have both options. I wonder how plausible it would be that some who have fleet carriers end up decommissioning them if they're already highly engaged with their Squadron.

 

[Stealthie]

I don’t think BF2 (assuming you’re talking about Battlefield 2) is a fair comparison, they’re very different games with very different styles.

I mean just learning to take off and fly out of the mail slot takes longer than learning almost everything in BF2. It’s intentionally fast paced, frantic gameplay - something that Helldivers 2 (completely missed the first one) has ramped right up.

ED is a much slower paced, longer game, not a 10 minute battle. And it’s also not a game for everyone. - Much like Eve isn’t a game for me despite having lots of things I like in it.

Yep,

I was just relating my personal experience of getting into ED, with other people who weren't as willing to make the required effort.

A more modern comparison might be, perhaps, if an ED veteran was to encourage friends who play something like Fortnite or PUBG to try ED.
In that context, it's probably a smart decision for FDev to try and find a way for experienced players to loan ships to newbies to bypass the frustration attached to earning credits, unlocking engineers and gathering mat's so the newbies don't feel like they're at a huge disadvantage.... IF FDev was actually willing to allow engineered ships to be loaned.


I wonder if, perhaps, a reasonable compromise might be if FDev created some kind of "points system" to control loaned ships?
Every member of a Vanguard gets, say, 100 "rental points" each week.
You could rent small ships for a couple of points per hour, more for medium ships and even more for large ships.
Engineered ships would cost double, or even triple, the number of points depending on the level of engineering.
Importantly, a player would only be able to spend a maximum of 100 points on a single ship.

A player might be able to rent a modestly-engineered Krait for 10 points/hour and so they'd be able to fly it for 10 hours, getting maybe a week of gameplay out of it.
Equally, a fully-engineered Corvette might cost 50 points/hour so they'd only be able to fly it for a couple of hours to get an idea of what it's like.

 

[Fizzatron]

The Squadron has access to some enhanced mining laser control software which allows more efficient displacement of chunks with less vapourisation of valuable materials. It's a new development and still patented and fairly tightly controlled by the supplier, so not everyone has it yet. If you leave the organisation, then you lose access to the software by the same compulsory software update mechanism that can impose new permit locks on systems, etc.

So much of ED's technology is already thinly-disguised space magic that handwaving one more doesn't seem a problem either, to me. So much of the game doesn't follow basic physics principles (conservation of energy, mass or momentum; basic size relationships for things smaller than planets) - even excluding the "necessary space magic" like shields or FTL travel - that it's more surprising when things are physically plausible.

But that's the sort of experimental thing engineering is for, no?

 

[Fizzatron]

Ultimately, I guess I'm just not a "joiner"

I'm kinda similar, I prefer to be independent and do my own thing. However, Squadrons are a thing for those who like that sort of thing, so I'm perfectly fine with this update. However, I'm curious how much this Squadron Carrier is going to be to purchase/upkeep, and may create a Squadron for my son and I, as it might work out overall better than using my personal carrier for us.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

But that's the sort of experimental thing engineering is for, no?

It would be equally possible to be added via the "engineering" space magic route, yes, but they're wanting a feature for squadrons to use so it's here instead.

 

[Frankymole]

What happens if a squadron leader can no longer play due to sudden emergency and is unable to hand over to another member? Is there a way of electing a new leader?

It would be a shame if the results other members' hard work were written off or made inaccessible. And we know that sadly, some of us become unable to play, some even die in the real world. When it's only your own assets to worry about, it isn't such a concern.

 

[Koma Pahu]

I was just relating my personal experience of getting into ED, with other people who weren't as willing to make the required effort.

It is an example I understand.

As I intimated elsewhere I find the idea of sharing ships without engineering strange, when you will have a bank that could give enough for the new player to buy any ship you can lend them.

I’m not opposed to a temporary loan of a fully engineered ship tbf.

But my point wasn’t about engineering, rather than the social (or lack thereof) aspects of the game. The game is by nature “grindy” and even giving a newbie a G5ed ship isn’t going to change that and if someone isn’t fond of the long game, they’re not going to stick around either way.

 

[Fizzatron]

You just described me, sort of.

Back in the early 2010s, I used to play multiplayer FPS's with a bunch of guys who I went paintballing with.
We graduated to flight-sims and, eventually, to ED just before Horizons arrived.
Basically, all we ever did was take our starter Eagles and Sidey's to RES's and explode stuff, with some of us upgrading to Vipers and Cobras.

I put off engaging with Engineers for about 6 months because I was more interested in hanging out with my mates than getting "into" ED.
Eventually, I wanted to make the effort to upgrade my ships, they didn't, so most of them left.

To me that reads as a very good reason to allow engineered modules to be shared with the Squadron, if technically feasible. It's not that far off the same reason as to why the jump-start ships work in a similar way... wait... <dons tinfoil hat>

 

[Koma Pahu]

What happens if a squadron leader can no longer play due to sudden emergency and is unable to hand over to another member? Is there a way of electing a new leader?

It would be a shame if the results other members' hard work were written off or made inaccessible. And we know that sadly, some of us become unable to play, some even die in the real world. When it's only your own assets to worry about, it isn't such a concern.

You can choose what roles various officers have.

In previous games (back as far as the late 90s) we’ve had leaders move on and, although we’ve always transferred power, we’ve played with such a structure that almost all the admin can be done by the deputies even with the sudden loss of the leader.

Obviously we don’t yet know how FDev will implement it, but these issues aren’t new so hopefully they will have thought of it.

 

[Fizzatron]

While i do get that sentiment, the problem with "using the imagination for fun" is it's explicitly not what a game is for; it's a system of play based around some known rules that make a fun experience.

When two kids start kicking a ball around, there's already some unwritten rules that make it fun. Don't kick it through the neighbours yard, definitely don't kick it through the window, and keep it away from the road and out of the creek. Also, actually kick it to each other.

Those kids get back together and play the same way each time, not because they've lost their imagination, but because it's fun to play that way.

But then if your big brother joins in and kicks it across the road and goes "hurr hurr go get it", suddenly, the whole thing isn't fun anymore. It's just dumb and annoying, because they actively worked against it. You can try to come up with new rules, but your big dumb brother just keeps kicking it over the road, and despite your best efforts, it's just not fun anymore.

ED is the big, annoying brother here, coming over with its vanguards and Powerplay overlays. "Don't play that way, you don't get good rewards!", "come do the cg and get rewards!", meanwhile the mechanics actively work against you by defying any sane logic or design, metaphorically "kicking the ball over the road" because i can spin credits and shape the universe stacking massacres.

But taking the time, effort and thought to bring back a core mollusc sample gets a chiding snort from big brother who goes "well that's dumb, have a thousand credits".

I wish i could use imagination here, but ED is dead set on working against it, and overlays like this do nothing.

Oh well.

There can be a football pitch and a golf course in the same town. I don't think your analogy applies here, though that's not to say I don't understand your point. When there are multiple things to do I guess it could look like favoritism by the devs when they promote this over that but I think it's fair to say that by doing so they're advertising for people who are into that sort of thing to engage with it, which is hard cheese for those who aren't. In such case, keep on playing how you play. Think of all of those who are 99% out in the black happily ignoring all CGs etc.

 

[alexzk]

Given the introduction of the Squadron Bank, I wonder if Squadrons will be able to tithe members earnings (in the same way as NPC crew do)?

That is "exit" button granted for me I don't want to sponsor anybody who writes in the game chat 2 times per year.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Unfortunately there's a long history of various features leaking through to existing game play loops and often not in a positive way. Powerplay has leaked out and impacted negatively a lot of stuff. We lost on foot loot outside of powerplay areas that might have finally been fixed I haven't checked recently. Suddenly have defence force dropping into all instances. Missions that are still straight out broken and contacts that are still disabled.

Odyssey was released. we lost console support, performance and planets were regenerated removing many amazing racing canyons.

If vanguards was just tacked onto the side and ignorable that'd be one thing. It's likely that it'll leak and people worry with the history that the stuff that they enjoy might get replaced or rebalanced to promote squadron activities.

Right now it's all guesswork. it's a bit premature to be crying that vanguards is going to break anything but people have reason to be worried that vanguards will come at the expense of some of the gameplay they enjoy. That's fine if vanguards replaces it with something they can enjoy but we're not sure it will and waiting 6-12 months for bug fixes always feels bad.

This idea that things shouldn't "leak" out is the opposite of a problem. When features arent fully integrated into the game and instead their own little self contained bubbles they feel less than half baked.

 

[alexzk]

(I'm not a top-quality combat player by a long way so even normal High CZs I'd treat as group content - sure, with ammo synthesis I can get through them and my ship's in no actual danger throughout, but they're just a slog, whereas with two people they last a fun amount of time and have more interesting challenges than the Mediums so I wouldn't pick anything else)

Lasers build + npc pilot/fighter + some repair drones. You can do HI CZs all the day long without docking. If you had shield boosters in the build, then you will need to dock to recharge though.
That's the most fun for me in all games - do solo group content.

 

[Fizzatron]

It would be equally possible to be added via the "engineering" space magic route, yes, but they're wanting a feature for squadrons to use so it's here instead.

Fair, maybe Frontier could have a brainstorming session and come up with a few lines to explain it away then. That way, it's not just join a squadron and watch the galaxy bend to our will depending on what the Squadron leader's deified powers grant at their whim.