I hope we get to level or NPC pilots to Elite V with the introduction of the NPC EXP perk. They are rubbish at Elite level.
Vanguards / Squadron rework screencaps from stream......
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
Please not like this. In TESO i figured how to do solo "raid" content for 8 people100mins later when 1st boss died I found I need to push 8 buttons at once to continue. That was cruel :/
The fact that a mission can't be completed in a way it was never intended to be shouldn't really be a reason to complain.
Fortunately, In ED, we have the Mission Briefing UI that specifically tells the player about anything (SRV, cargo racks, passenger cabins etc) that they need to complete a mission.
For co-op missions, they'd be listed as Wing-missions (which should be the first hint that a lone player is on shaky ground by attempting to complete it alone) but then a simple sentence that says something like "This mission includes activities that require 2 or more Commanders to assist each other." should avoid any frustration or disappointment.
Thing is, ED already has stuff like surface outposts with generators that need to be shut down to turn off barriers, megaships with power couplings that can be hacked to disable weapons, orbital installations with panels that can be shot to open/close hatchways and, of course, the Guardian obelisks that need to be powered-up to activate the altar.
It's actually kind of disappointing (to me, atleast) that none of these mechanics have ever been used to create co-op missions already.
It's like FDev are saying, on the one hand, that they want to create content that encourages communal play while, OTOH, they're saying that they want all content to be available to lone players.
Seems like they need to pick a lane.
Personally, as somebody who doesn't usually get involved in multiplayer stuff, I don't have a problem with the possibility that there might be stuff I can't participate in and, hey, if there was distinct co-op stuff in the game, I might be more inclined to give it a go.
And, of course, if it's likely I'm in a minority in wanting distinct co-op content, you have to question the wisdom of making the effort to develop an update dedicated to communal activities.
Right but this goes back to my point: Why care? Why MUST players group up to access X thing? It's a pretty big galaxy, what happened to "go your own way"?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We don't yet know what level of grouping might be required - the discussion relates to a work around on the assumption that some arbitrary membership requirement is set for Squadron Carrier ownership.
Also noting that "go your own way" does not necessarily mean "being able to engage in all content".
I hope not, think of it this way, my squadron has only 3 members, we are doing colonisation with 3 fleet carriers, if we could reasonably purchase and run something that would replace the three it would benefit everyone.I feel there will be minimum requirement for buying squadron carrier, like 10 of members. If not, bubble will be overflowed by carriers.
O7
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We've yet to hear what the purchase price, service costs, and upkeep will be - as well as fuel consumption. It may be that the Squadron Carrier will cost twice as much (or more) than a personal Carrier to run.
Absolutely agree. However if you want players to group together, don't give them artificial hurdles to force their hand. Make them WANT to group together. Give us content where we need to find like-minded players to help us meet our goal.
As ever, any new feature ought to be based around content, and arguably new content and game loops.
However being a veteran ED player, I imagine we'll have new toys to play with with little in terms of new things to do with them.
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.
FDEV might even see those solo CMDRs with FOMO buying another 10 or 11 alts - again I assume those with that inclination already have at least 5.
But, for the love of Mike, please give us something new to do with them!
However being a veteran ED player, I imagine we'll have new toys to play with with little in terms of new things to do with them.
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.
FDEV might even see those solo CMDRs with FOMO buying another 10 or 11 alts - again I assume those with that inclination already have at least 5.
But, for the love of Mike, please give us something new to do with them!
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.
Please not like this. In TESO i figured how to do solo "raid" content for 8 people
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...
Last edited:
I'd like Squadron VS Squadron Battles. Park a Squadron carrier in a system to compete with another Squadron carrier. The squadron with the most kills after a week gains credits and influence / control over the star system. This could also work vs. a Thargoid or NPC faction carrier.
Seconded. Some content such as Squadrons (including missions and the squadron carrier) should be specifically designed for group-play.
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.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It'll depend on how much of the player-base Frontier are prepared to alienate by forcing a multi-player requirement into a new game feature.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...
A good start. But that part we, in some way, already have with the ranking system.
What i really would like to see would be more complex scenarios. Using mechanics which already exist in CQC and thus most people never ever saw. Which by placing them smartly require people to cooperate and coordinate their efforts. That would be a complete new layer of gameplay. It would add so much to the game, and the pure mechanical parts generally already exist in the game. They "merely" need to be placed into the game in a more sophisticated way.
Again, I'm reminded of the conversations that used to happen, where people would insist that purchasing the game should be enough to grant them access to every aspect of it, rather than having to actually complete in-game tasks to gain access to things.
I'd say purchasing the game grants you the potential to do stuff, not the right.
I mean, you might as well insist that you want to fly a Viper 3 and you want to be able to haul 700t of cargo in it.
Yea. Adding multiplayer into a multiplayer oriented feature seems to indeed, by now, be a strange idea for some players here. But really: what will be taken away away from the players by adding multiplayer content?
Sure, i might be the oddball here. Being one of the few, who still would like to have content where multiplayer content is designed for several playes, and not being "solo by another name". But the existance of a number of player organisations in the game tells me, that there are many players around who like to coordinate with others. Yet, while they coordinate on discord, the actual activity in game is generally more efficient playing solo, often by so much that actual in-game cooperation drastically reduces the chances of success.
I dare to ask the question: how will we know, if we never try?
Squadron vs Squadron Battle could work like this:
- Hyperspace jump to 1 star system
- Another squadron (or more) also park their carrier in the same system.
- These squadrons can either: A. ignore each other, B. cooperate, C. fight for influence in that system.
- The squadron leader can declare war on another squadron.
- Fighting for influence is done by destroying ships of the rival squadron. Optionally damaging their carrier.
- The squadron that inflicts most kills or damage after 1 week is the victor.
- If the rival carrier leaves the system that means they conceded defeat.
- The victors are rewarded with credits and an influence boost in the system.
- The end result could contribute to the squadron score and ranking.
That's vague. What kind of complex scenarios and what are the mechanics? CQC is an e-sport game mode imo.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Development time and cost that could otherwise have been used on something that players who eschew the need to play with players could engage in.
True - however that was done with Odyssey and the expectation that players would flock to on-foot content.
Posts like this make me wish I could click the "like" button multiple times.
First sentence says it all, really.
If you're happy with the stuff you can do in ED, why's it matter if there's stuff you're not interested in?
As I've said, personally I'm not a "joiner" so I'm never going to be interested in any kind of "guild" mechanic.
Hell, I've yet to indulge in PP2 because I'm not keen on being affiliated with any superpower for longer than it takes to get the modules.
Even so, I'd love to be able to just join up with some rando' at a station and go and do something multiplayer for a couple of hours.
I already wrote an example for that earlier in this thread:
Vanguards / Squadron rework screencaps from stream......
EVE like ? I played 1 week, than realized I will never get to the level everybody had around. At least, without selling my home for EVE. Because we had 20 years difference. Yes but only for one gameplay loop that we don't have since redoing the entire economy already in place isn't happening...
And yes, CQC itself is not what i want. But you have the "hit switch there to open gate there" and such things in CQC. While it being a small and kind of seperate game on the same engine, it contains a number of mechanics which could easily be transported to the main game and be brought to good use here.
Decreased premium is gonna be wild