that will go over well.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 will go over well.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)?
I play in a D&D group that's been running since 1984. Almost all of them are committed PC gamers as well. Not one of them wants to play Elite- not even the space and aviation nuts.If it merely is a bigger carrier and a bit of interface rework: yes.
But i know a number of people who enjoyed the game for a while. But found playing together to be severely lacking. So our gaming evenings turned towards other games, as already mentioned. Most frequent picks are Deep Rock Galactic, Helldivers 2 and recently Mechwarrior 5: Mercenaries again. All of them a bit more relaxed and cooperative.
Proper support of cooperative gameplay could very likely make them return and potentially buy Odyssey. At the very least it would give me the chance to advertise ED to my friends again. If it would stick, would of course depend on the quality of the new stuff.
So... quality of the new stuff. Based on FDs history... my sarcastic side does say, it's hopeless... but i try not to give in to that...
We had a grossly overstrength 29...I'd like SFC to be limited to at least squadrons of at least 10 or (after a quick Google) the current average NATO squadron size of 18.
Oh, yeah. I had a gap from the Oddy release until late last year.The problem with an "active" player requirement is that many ED players stop playing for months (or years) then come back if there's a big update with new features. The requirements should be no more than a Corporation in Eve Online or a Guild in World of Warcraft.
The game is what it is. I've bought copies for just about everyone I know. They gave up after a month, at the longest. Then they bought Baldur's Gate...
The New And Improved Squadrons will benefit existing players, not draw more in, for the most part.
I think "go for a spin" was me!Several people have suggested (possibly in a different thread) that the point of loaning ships is so that newbies can go for a spin in a half-decent ship so they might decide to stick around long enough to start building their own ships.
Sooo... what we're saying is we want to create a way to allow newbies to do stuff that didn't previously interest them enough to buy/play ED more easily, thus making it more frustrating when they attempt to do those things without assistance?
I'm no game-design expert but that doesn't sound like a great way to attract (and retain) new players.
Basically, I suspect the vast majority of people who might enjoy what ED has to offer are already players or they haven't heard of it.
I play in a D&D group that's been running since 1984. Almost all of them are committed PC gamers as well. Not one of them wants to play Elite- not even the space and aviation nuts.
It is very cold...in spaaaaceSo ED is going to have to appeal to gamers who aren't so stuffed full of dopamine, its going to have to become a lot more chill and slow (and by that I do not mean more tedious grind)
I think "go for a spin" was me!
Not every feature is going to attract entirely new players – for this game, most realistically won't. But anecdotally, thinking about the people I've brought into the game, I'm sticking to my guns that this can help convert people from "eh, maybe" to being really interested. Two reasons:
1. It allows them to experience what's possible on the other side of The Grind. A lot of them just don't know. They know engineered ships are strong, but they don't really know that there's a world beyond "lasers and multi-cannons" and that it's a lot of fun. And so they feel they should play efficiently (so, lasers and multi-cannons) and perform The Grind, but they don't have a sense of why they're doing it, of if there's something to enjoy on the other side.
2. ED is a strange sort of RPG for a reason that's been brought up a bit in this thread: there's a real split between RPG-like progression elements and skill-based gameplay. I think most of the player base wouldn't be happy with a purist RPG-like progression alone, and that includes most of our newbies and potential players. The desire for skill-based gameplay craves a level playing field, even a glimpse of it, to begin to get a sense of what there is to actually learn and master.
Ultimately I know if I loan a G5 engineered ship to a few friends, they'll have fun and come away more enthusiastic about playing the game more. Those activities they have half-hearted interest in now, they'll actually see the value of, and they'll also have more appreciation for much of the game is about how you fly, not just what grinding you've done.
That's a good way to put it.It's as baffling as DCS and as fantastical as Star Wars and I suspect there's only ever going to be a limited intersection between the groups of people interested in both of those genres.
Well said.Oh, I agree that it can't hurt.
At the risk of being a bit "all problems and no solutions", my only real point was that if FDev think there's still potential customers for ED out there, there's probably not much in the game that interests them so providing extra tools to help people experience the stuff that doesn't interest them probably isn't the "magic formula" they're hoping for.
If communal play is the new "thing", it might be nice if they had a look at the stuff that's already in the game and found ways to put a communal spin on it.
It should be technically available to single player squadrons but not feasible for them. If Fdev balance it right.I don't think any developer would advertise a new game feature that would end up not being available to the majority of its players. So these new squadron things will surely be accessible to one man squadrons, including the new carrier class.
Looking forward to having two carriers per commander, more cargo capacity, more ships stored, more range?
I understand the reasoning and I do wish to support fdev, but this is not very useful. Maybe loaning engineered weapons for a limited time at a cost, is far more appropriate, get your ship with arx, try for a limited time like a few hours even. If you want further restrictions, can only be used to a certain level I.e. grade 3, or even to purchased ships.Without engineered modules though.
I don't know why they, at least at this moment, are planning to have that "no engineering" restriction on shared ships, but I would guess that maybe it has to do with what I myself wrote earlier in this thread (and that other one by Mechan): Balancing things from the perspective of new players.I understand the reasoning and I do wish to support fdev, but this is not very useful. Maybe loaning engineered weapons for a limited time at a cost, is far more appropriate, get your ship with arx, try for a limited time like a few hours even. If you want further restrictions, can only be used to a certain level I.e. grade 3, or even to purchased ships.
Also, many don't want to get a private pilot's license to play games.
Better yet, to make it jump you will need player activity to make it jump, like a crew positioned at active stations, this way you prevent a one man army jumping all over the place.Which is why i added the part about needing 10 active players also for jumping, etc.
A deleted account, or one which has not logged in during an event three years ago, kind of does not really count as active any more. So you could have a carrier somewhere. Not moving, not being able to pay upkeep and thus being removed at the next upkeep cycle.
Better yet, to make it jump you will need player activity to make it jump, like a crew positioned at active stations, this way you prevent a one man army jumping all over the place.