Frontier will be re-opening CG submission process on the 29th May (TBC). Submissions won’t be via the forums, but by a form with templates to fill out via the website. In the future this form could be implemented into the Frontier website, but at the moment it will be via Google documents. Frontier will then look at submissions by types of submission to select ones that they want to implement. There are no new types at the moment, but with some of the mechanics being re-visited in Q4 they will be looking at improving exploration CG’s. They are hoping to do one or two a month. Player run community events will continually to be run separately. Only successful CG applications will be contacted about their submission being accepted. If you wish to see details about how to fill in the form, and further details you can watch it by clicking the link, here. Further information will appear on the Frontier forum shortly.
On the 17th May 2018 at 7pm (BST), Frontier will be discussing Community Goal submissions during a live stream.
“Player-submitted Community Goals will be coming back very soon! We’re changing a few things up, so join me and, Principal Designer, Steve Kirby to talk about the old system, the new system, why we’ve changed and how it works!
We’ll be going live tomorrow night (17/05) at 7PM (BST).
Tune in here
“See you there, Commanders!”
At 12:58pm on the 15th May 2018 Frontier opened up the feedback forum to possible changes to Power Play. You can see Sandro Sammarco’s suggestions below and contribute to the discussions here. These suggestions will be reflected on the The Future? “It’s on the list….” page in due course.
“As well as having a good old chew on Squadrons, we’re loading up a side order for the Focused Feedback Forum, because, frankly, we want to get more feedback! Importantly, this is an additional topic and does not replace the line-up announced earlier for Squadrons, Mining and Exploration.
“We’re considering a package of tweaks to Powerplay and we’d like your thoughts on them. Note that this is not a fait accompli, just something we’re investigating.
“The concept behind these changes is not to completely change Powerplay, but address a few important issues as efficiently and nicely as possible. Some of these changes are subtle, others very significant. The idea is that as a whole they form a rounded update that provides improvements to the core experience of Powerplay.
“As a flash topic, this will be the only thread, so all relevant replies can live in it. Please use the headings listed below with your replies to make it easier for us to process the thread, and of course, please remember the golden rule: your replies should be to us only. Feel free to debate with each other in non-sticky threads.
“What we’re looking for are your thoughts as to the ramifications of these changes based on the way you involve yourself in Powerplay, both positive and negative.
“With that in mind:
POWER PLAY PROPOSAL
Preparation Cycle Split
• The first half of the cycle is available for preparation
• The second half of the cycle locks the current preparation values and enables voting
Vote to veto preparation
• Each player can vote to veto or support each preparation
• If a preparation ends the cycle with more veto votes than support votes it is removed from preparation
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
Reasoning: these two changes in tandem are meant to make it easier to prevent bad systems from being prepared with minimal effort. Rather than use consolidation, which must be chosen blind in terms of both the final preparation for systems and the final resting place for the consolidation marker, here Commanders are voting on a fixed list and can choose precisely which systems they want to attempt to veto.
Vote to withdraw from system
• Each cycle players can vote on the 5 least profitable systems, to withdraw or support
• At the end of a cycle if a system has more withdraw votes than support votes it is removed from the power’s control
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
Reasoning: currently there is no way to lose a bad control system other than hoping or colluding with opposing powers that it will end up being forced into turmoil. We think this vote is a legible and relatively safe way of allowing powers to shed chaff, as only systems that at a base level would be unprofitable would be eligible for withdrawal.
Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes
• A system’s base profitability modifies preparation votes, withdraw votes and preparation successes
• Votes and successes for profitable systems are increased by a factor of 10
Reasoning: we think this modifier acts as another barrier against internal sabotage, forcing the saboteurs to work many more times harder to get the same effect as a Commander who has the power’s interests at heart.
Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification
• A control system that is undermined by 100% more than the fortification value will be undermined even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met
Reasoning: We feel that Powerplay rules tend towards stagnation and status quo, which is not something we intended. Despite all the effort in the world, a power that fortifies enough, against values set by the game rather than in opposition to attack, can remain safe. This change allows sheer force of effort (or numbers) to guarantee systems end up being undermined, making deficit more likely. And to stop this happening, a power must directly compete against its enemies.
Overhead removal and slight increase to distance cost modifier
• Overhead upkeep costs are removed making a system’s base profitability static
• Distance modifier to upkeep is increased to maintain some sense of expansion “gravity”
Reasoning: Overheads are a way to prevent rampant expansion of powers. However, the cost is very high, as they cause an unavoidable amount of uncertainty when calculating CC at the cycle change, as well as just being another level of complexity. We think it would be better to remove them, increase the distance modifier to upkeep a bit, and live with powers that can expand more, as with the other changes in this package we hope that the result will be much more direct attack and dynamism caused by powers fighting each other.
• Ethos is only checked for the control system and the power
• If the power and controlling faction share the same superpower the power is always strong against the faction
Reasoning: this is a fairly straight forward override to ensure that – for example – Federal powers are always strong against federal factions. The other part of this change, to focus ethos on the control system only, is to make the process legible and focus Commanders in the same place, increasing the chance of conflict.
Missions give Powerplay successes
• Missions for factions in a system that share a power’s superpower award a number of Powerplay successes when completed
• The mission type determines how many successes are given
• Successes can be applied to expansion, opposition, fortification and undermining
Reasoning: one of the complaints of Powerplay is the limited actions available to support your power. We think that liking, in a very simple manner, missions for aligned factions and Powerplay successes allows Commanders increased variety in an efficient manner. The idea is not to replace the standard Powerplay activities, but to compliment them.
For clarity: Open only is being considered for Powerplay. Not anything else. Also, Open only would still be limited to platform, so no instanced crossplay.
• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
Reasoning: We’ve saved the biggest change for last, as making Powerplay Open only goes way beyond the remit of a tweak. We’ve seen this topic discussed many times and we think it’s time we addressed it directly to get as much quality feedback as possible.
Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.”
Thanks to all round good egg Stuart GT on Reddit, here is a summary of the details taken from last night’s live stream with Adam Bourke-Waite. A summarised version of this information will appear in due course on the Beyond: Chapter 4 page. Please note: This is just the first part of the discussion on Squadrons, more will follow in due course.
- Squadrons ≃ “guilds”, and a multiplayer organisation tool, to enhance and organise existing gameplay
- Not being designed around Solo CMDRs, being designed around groups of CMDRs
- Leaders/Officers will not gain benefits (credits, resources)
- Minimum requirement for creating a Squadron = 1 CMDR
- Minimum requirement for many Squadron features (e.g. getting a Carrier) = “a number of CMDRs”
- Squadron names can be reserved for existing player groups, to prevent name-sniping
- Squadron name will be permanent upon its creation, and must be unique
- Will a deleted-Squadron’s name be available again = don’t know, will check with server, gameplay teams
- Will rank be a requirement for Squadron creation = no
- Custom decals/logos for Squadrons = not at the moment
- Squadron-creation fee hasn’t been set yet – want to prevent Squadron-creation spam yet still allow smalls groups to create them
- Invitations can be disabled, i.e. “this Squadron is not accepting new members”
- Squadron page will be accessible in-cockpit, and similarly sized to Starport Services
- While creating a Squadron costs a credit fee, joining one is free
- 250 cap increase being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Squadron alliances/connections being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Potential for both the cap increase and alliances/connections to be added
- Minor faction and Powerplay allegiances/ties not being talked about yet, but aren’t a no
- Squadron bank is not being discussed now (will be during main Carrier feedback)
- Wings will stay the same
- Plenty of Squadron selectable “tags” available to help filtering/searching (e.g. search & rescue, PvP, timezones, Conlonia) and want more suggestions
- Each Squadron will have a 4 character ID to appear *somewhere* with CMDR names for identification
- Instancing will not be changed to allow 250+ CMDRs in same instance, but…
- …will be easier for members to join the same instance as they’ll have high matchmaking priority
- Squadrons and notoriety? Will be discussed at a later point
- Will Squadron chat have a back history, to read when you go online = no
- Squadron “rank” count (3 so far – Leader, Officers, Pilots) increase being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Officers privileges are fully-customisable anyway, so different officers in same Squadron can have different roles
- Those ranks will not be renamable
- Carrier is a very large ship that members can dock with
- Carrier can jump if a large enough amount of a “resource” is collected
- Carrier movement not restricted to weekly server tick, can jump whenever enough “resource” is collected
- Can have a Squadron without a Carrier
- Squadron “beacon” for pointing members to a place/meetup is being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Stickied Squadron chat message-of-the-day can contain instructions/details/whatever
- Squadron comms will be text
- Squadrons and their comms are not cross-platform
- Non-members can visit and see another Squadron’s Carrier, visibly identify its upgrades, but cannot dock at it
- Nobody can create more than one Squadron
- Edge-cases of Squadron leadership (inactive, wiped save, etc) being discussed by the devteam
- Squadron-created missions = no
- Squadron comms might be cross-gamemode, i.e. messaging across Open/Group/Solo
- Will Squadron members be visible on the Galaxy map, cross-gamemode = being discussed amongst the devteam
- Squadron page will contain statistics, roster, Carrier details, info & chat feeds, etc
- Can you hide your Squadron ID = don’t know, will discuss amongst the devteam
- More information on Carriers in the future
- Will it be possible to walk around in the Carrier = no, it will not be introducing SpaceLegs
- Carriers can be customised, details to be announced in future
- Carriers are of Megaship scale, and cost will be paid for by the Squadron, not specifically the Leader
- Edward Lewis keeps sabotaging the stream: first no audio, and the lights keep switching off
- Will Squadrons be able to have a description = no (initially), hoping the tagging system will be enough
- Will the feed contain news for bragging rights, PvP kills, etc = give your feedback on what you want in the feed
Frontier have announced a Live stream for this evening (Thursday 10th May 2018) to discuss the first part of the feedback for the Squadrons feature which is coming in quarter 4. You can follow it from 6pm BST with Senior Designer Adam Bourke-Waite here.
On Tuesday 8th May Frontier announced the opening of the Focused Feedback Forum for first part of Squadrons discussion. You can find the forum here. If you’ve not read or participated in the Focused feedback before, maybe take a look at the Golden Rule thread first! Below is a rundown of the first part of the discussion on Squadrons.
What is a Squadron?
A Squadron is a group of Commanders who want to band together and organise themselves in-game. This might be to play together, or to focus on certain types of gameplay such as bounty hunting, Community Goals, or perhaps rescuing Commanders who find themselves out of fuel.
The idea of Squadrons is to provide a series of features that support multiplayer organisation and gameplay. In this Focused Feedback forum, we’ll be covering the creation and management of Squadrons.
How do I create a Squadron?
Once Squadrons are introduced they will have their own full screen GUI page. When opening this without having joined a Squadron you will have the option to search for a Squadron to join or to create your own. Creating your own Squadron will involve paying a credit fee (amount to be decided) and then setting the following values.Squadron name: This has to be a unique name that cannot be changed once the Squadron is created.
Squadron ID: A short ID or tag.
Language: The primary language the Squadron will communicate in.
Attitude: Choose from a pre-set list of attitudes. The list is currently – Relaxed, Family, and Devoted.
Tags: Each Squadron will be able to select a few tags from a wider list. This list includes elements such as “PvP”, “Bounty Hunting” and timezones such as “UTC+3”.
Superpower: Choose one of the following: Empire, Federation, Alliance or Independent.
Our list of tags is a work in progress, what tags would you be keen to see?
Once all of these values have been set and the Commander is happy, the credit fee is paid and the Squadron is created. The Commander who creates the Squadron will be automatically assigned as the Squadron leader.
How do I find/join a Squadron?
As I mentioned previously, if a Commander accesses the Squadron page and is not currently part of Squadron, they will have the option to search for one to join. Using the same fields as listed above the Commander can search by whatever is important to them and will receive a list of Squadrons based on that criteria.
The Commander will be able to look a set of Squadron statistics and use this to decide which Squadron they want to apply to.
Once the Commander finds a Squadron they like, they can send an application. This application will include a small amount of text that, by default, will include some information on the Commander (highest Elite rank, for example) but can also be edited if required.
The Squadron Leader (and Officers) will be able to see a list of all Commander applicants and, at this point, can send the applicants an invite. Both the invitee and inviter must be online at the same time for the invitation to be sent and accepted. This option to invite will also be available on other areas of the HUD where Commanders can select other Commanders, for example a Commander’s friend list.
We are currently considering capping Squadron membership at 250 Commanders, but we’re interested to hear your feedback on the matter.
Can I leave a Squadron?
Commanders can leave a Squadron at any time. If a leader chooses to leave a Squadron then they must pass the leadership mantle onto another Commander. If all members leave a Squadron then it will be disbanded and any assets the Squadron holds will also be lost.
The only time the leader can leave and not pass on the mantle of leader is when they are the last member to leave (and the Squadron is disbanded).
The Squadron hierarchy and privileges.
You may have noticed above that I have referred to both the Squadron Leader and Officers.
There are three classes of Squadron member and these are:Leader: The Squadron Leader has all privileges and can set which privileges officers have.
Officer: The Officers have whatever privileges the leader has set for them.
Pilot: This is the standard level, and the majority of Squadron members will be pilots. They have whatever privileges the leader has set for them.
What privileges can the leader set?
The Squadron leader can set the following privileges:
- Officers can invite Commanders into the Squadron (yes/no) (greyed out if new members cannot join)
- Officers can kick Pilots from the Squadron (yes/no)
- Officers can plot a jump for a Fleet Carrier (yes/no)
- Officers can select purchase upgrades for a Fleet Carrier (yes/no)
- Officers can set the ‘Message of the Day’ (yes/no)
This is the current list of privileges but we expect to add more as development progresses and we discover the need for them!
One of the most important features that Squadrons adds is the ability for groups of Commanders to communicate with each other. Squadron facilitates this with the following features:
Group Comms – A new feature that will be used by Squadrons is group comms, this will add channels and other functionality to the chat panel. When a Squadron is created, the Squadron channel and the Squadron officer channel (which is only available to Officers and the Leader) are automatically created and any Squadron members are added to the relevant channels. This allows Squadron members to communicate regardless of where they are in the galaxy.
The Feed – The Squadron overview page (which becomes available once a Commander joins a Squadron) will have a list of automated posts that are added to a feed. This feed will provide essential feedback on the Squadron, the fleet carrier and their activities. For example when a player joins the Squadron a message will automatically be added to the feed. The feed is limited to a certain amount of posts (amount TBD). Those members with the correct privileges will also be able to add a message of the day to the feed, the latest message will always remain stickied to the top of the feed. This provides a place for Officers to provides orders for the rest of the Squadron.
We are investigating the possibility of an external Squadrons website. We would love to hear what functionality you would like to see on a Squadrons website.
The Fleet Carrier
As you might have noticed above, it will be possible for Squadrons to possess a Fleet Carrier. We will be devoting an entire Focused Feedback thread to Squadron Fleet Carriers, so please refrain from discussing it at this time.
Squadrons and factions
We are aware that some groups will want to align their Squadron with a faction. We are currently looking at how we can make this work and allow Squadrons to ‘fly the flag’ of a faction. This is something we will be discussing during a latter Focused Feedback thread, so please avoid discussing this for now.
If you don’t know the drill, this is where you come in!
You will see a few more threads regarding Squadrons in the near future.
To keep things sane, we want you to post specific issues that you think of in the issues thread and suggestions in the suggestions and support thread. This is also the place to comment if you feel the feature is in general, an improvement.
If you can think of specific details that are not described but that you think are important, pop these requests in the detail requests thread!
We’ll let this topic stew here for a while, at least a week, but it will very much depend on the feedback.
Note: Date for Squadrons has been changed by Frontier to the 8th May.
“While we’re hard at work on the next update for Elite Dangerous Beyond 3.1, we wanted to share our plans for the Focused Feedback Forum, and when you’ll see particular topics come up for discussion.
“The Focused Feedback Forum, for those who don’t know, is an area of the forum where we describe and explain our concepts for future features coming as part of Elite Dangerous Beyond. When the forum post goes live, we then welcome constructive and focused feedback from our community on each topic. Previous Focused Feedback Forum discussions have proven to be extremely useful for development, so we wanted to get things going as soon as possible in order to best consider your suggestions.
“We’d like to thank you again for all of your feedback across social media, the forums and direct messages. Although the Focused Feedback Forums give us a place to focus on specific topics, we still pass on every suggestion and comment to the development team for consideration.
“It’s important to note that the following list and dates are not final, and we have to allow for some flexibility. You may also see other topics pop up in addition to those listed below, we will keep you up to date when or if we’re adding any more discussion topics. Please note that the topics will overlap (as you can clearly see below) – this allows us to keep the discussion topics open for as long as possible, and gather as much information as we need. The main topic will be introduced, followed up by the inclusion and announcement of sub topics relating to the original discussion. As well as opening up the forums for discussion, we’ll also be hosting live streaming discussions with the developers on each topic. We’ll give you more information on these streams as we solidify the schedule.
Estimated start dates
“Thanks again for your continued support and feedback, we’re very excited to share our ideas with you.
“Ed and the Elite Dangerous team”