When only a fraction of the player base are even remotely into PvP, Squadrons wont be centred around that.True enough. First creating activities which require multiplayer, then supporting them better would probably have been better. But that's never how FD does things. Also mind that in the past, stuff which was first designed to be done by several people was nerfed. And people were reasoning that multiplayer was not supported well, so why should there be multiplayer content and not everything be solo-able?
Chicken and egg, i guess.
They finally, after all these years, look at squadrons again. The whole ranking stuff they put in there is just as ridiculous now as it originally was. I still have no idea, who of them thinks that it is a good idea, but it might also just be that they are afraid of simply disposing of it, believing that there will be actually one or two players who love it and would go ballistic if it was removed.
Yet finally returning to squadrons and thus to the multiplayer aspect of the game after oh so many years might, just might, give somebody pause and make them ponder if they should make the multiplayer system actually for many players, instead of many squadrons of one. And perhaps even could be an urgently needed trigger to finally also put some multiplayer oriented content into the game.
I know that the chances for that are not too great. But if there's just a chance for that, we should try. This is what the game so badly is lacking, after all.
Did all of them. Did not go the "i am afraid of people, have to do it all alone" route, but actually did them with other players. Fine enough. And yea, in ESO there also is content which, while designed for 12 people (not 8... the only 8 people content there is in PvP), can be done by smaller groups. Some even, in the non-veteran version, be done by dedicated solo players. Kudos to them, if they can pull it off. That's often a tough feat.
So what you described, that you manage to even kill that first boss solo means that you had a good sustain and survivability setup. (That boss does not have an enrage mechanic in normal mode, so time is no issue. But your setup has to be solid and you have to keep well focused throughout the fight. ) It's admirable that you were able to pull that off. Many players could never to that.
But after all this admiration, i still wonder if it would be right to demand that some content, which requires several players, should not be implemented because it would not suit your solo playstyle? Is that really the way you want to go? All the game, without exception, has to be designed just for you, everybody who might occasionally like another playstyle be damned?
You already have your one-person-squadron carrier. You have all the content, which all was cut down to be done solo. I guess just accepting a tiny bit of content in the game, which is not designed to be done by you and you alone is not acceptable?
I rather say: take pride that you can do very hard stuff. But please also accept that some players would be extremely happy if we also in FD, finally, after so many years of it being hinted at and being promided, then again being nerfed down to be soloable. I have no idea, if we would ever get that. But i would so much welcome it.
Scenarios where different things have to be done at different places are a good way to require multiplayer activity. Just like it's one of the reasons why military actions usually are done by more than one person: no matter how skilled a person it, he might be unable to do all required tasks at the same time. Now looking at some of the advertising videos FD made, which very much advertised combined arms combat, etc... giving us activities which would actually use and encourage such combined arms activities, instead of being all of us playing guys which Chuck Norris can only stare at in awe and admiration, then cry in envy, would be well overdue.
And yes, merely a "squadron carrier which is actually to be used by a squadron" instead of being just again for a solo player is not all we need. It can merely be a first step. Followed by adding more stuff which requires cooperative play. But it is one step which should be taken, instead of missing it and slam head first into the ground again, like so many other upgrades did in this regard.
Started already. Page one. Some were starting writing these demands even before you were done uploading this thread...
So... no good solution, we better give one to every player for free?
As ESO already was mentioned in this thread and i am replying to an ESO comment in this set of replies, i simply fall back to that. I still actively play that. I am in several guilds of different size. It has just such a system, where you need a certain number of players to have guild features active. Guild bank, guild tabard, stuff like that. Have 10 players or no access to those features.
And yes, there always were some people who had a guild as extra bank space. But they are a rarity. Despite it being possible to be in five guilds at the same time, so giving up one guild slot for more storage space is a comparatively lower price to pay, than giving up your only squadron slot for this. And yes, when base game accounts went free on the epic store, there was a temporary increase in such guilds.
The important part is: temporary. I've heard of more than one person reporting, that an unused account, created during a free to play event, was simply removed after several months. Resulting in the guild falling back to not having the mentioned features any more. Some people then bought 9 extra accounts... alas. Money for the developer. Most simply dropped that stuff. Keep in mind, i just checked: i can get the base game at the moment for €4.99. Yet people generally are not dropping piles of money on it, to have their guilds-of-one.
Thus, why should ED not go for something like the 10 ->active<- players requirement. Rules for what active could be as complex as:
- Has to have logged in and played (includes some measurable activity, not sitting on the landing pad) for at least an hour of total playtime within a certain time interval.
- The time interval might depend on financial investment, too. So...
- Free to play accounts have to be that active every week.
- Once an account has any money spending associated to it (even if it is just a small ARX package), this in increased by a month.
- An account holding Odyssey gets the time interval increased by 3 months.
- Optional: every older expansion connected to the game, which was paid for and not handed out for free adds another month.
Of course, as any other system, this can be gamed. Somebody can have 9 unpaid extra accounts and spend an hour of active in playing on each of them every week. But if somebody goes for that lengh and time investment... alas, i guess he shall have it. Somebody can also spend money on 9 additional accounts to reduce the time investment necessary to maintain that. In that case, hey... money for the developer.
Sure, his effort seems to defeat the system. But if some oddball really want to drop plenty of time and money on having his solo-squadron carrier, he may as well. While for almost all players, the system will work just as designed. In my eyes, it would be a viable path to pursue.
And yes, again: the carrier itself is merely one small part in the whole picture for me. But if FD finally, after all that time, looks at squadrons and thus multiplayer content again, i would very much appreciate if they finally also include multiplayer in their multiplayer design. Weird as that might sound for people working at FD...
ED has many modes (i hear the Eagles warming up), Solo and PG PVE are extremely popular, i will guess that in no way will any new stuff jeopardise any of those play styles, they didn't do it when they had the opportunity in PP2, they wont do it now.
The new content and mega carrier I'm sure will be aimed at group purchase/upkeep but still achievable by a small team (im hoping).
ED remains a Solo game with the opportunity to loin others in a PG or Open.
O7
