Hence the lead game designer is not changed my expectations for this feature are very, very, very low. Remember the prophesy guys: FD will give us everything we want in a way nobody will like
Pricing of fleet carrier: catering to small as well as large squadrons.
What rock have you been hiding under? Group/Wing missions have been announced for introduction under coverage of the 2018 series of updates.
Multi-crew does work AFAIK - whether is works as you might like it to is another matter. I am sure it is not completely perfect and prone to glitches on occasion but IME that is generally an issue with ALL on-line games.
Open Play lag could as well be as much about individual player bandwidth as anything else. Such things are neigh on unavoidable in this kind of environment. There are various tricks that can mitigate the underlying issues to at least some degree but from a technical standpoint there are limits to what is feasible.
As for FD not improving/fixing any current issues (perceived or otherwise), there is one phrase that springs to mind: Rome was not built in a day. The point being some issues require time and careful investigation to both determine the underlying root cause(s) and determine what the possible/feasible resolution(s) are.
even more a reason why fleet carriers have to be server side persistant objects: make them based on peer2peer and they are broken as any other thing that relies on that
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In which case they probably need to be invulnerable - as few player groups can hope to defend them 24/365 on all three platforms - which would disenfranchise all those player groups unable to defend them.
We don't know anything for sure, but we have lots of opinions
I think it boils down to this feature catering once again to MP player groups at the exclusion of single players who are not interested in having to form alliances with strangers in order to have access to a new feature.
So... Much like the ultimate reception to Multi-Crew, this will be just another in a long list of major feature additions the majority never asked for or wants, but that take FDEV a ton of time to develop and finally release.
Once it's true nature is discovered, it will then get promptly ignored by the majority of the ED community and thrown on the pile of other features that didn't work and are never revisited/improved/adapted into something the community DOES want.
How's that?
Last edited:
Currently, player groups add nothing to the game. All they are is a player-named minor faction. In order for player groups to be something the average player would want to join, you need to create content and then cut off that content from non-squadron members. So, rather than having player groups form naturally as they do now (via discord or similar), FDev will be forcing players to join groups solely to access the content that FDev limited to groups in the first place.
This is the primary reason why I think squadron-based assets are a bad idea. You'll have one player controlling the asset as his own private battle taxi while all the other squadron members (who, presumably, worked to purchase the carrier) have no say in how the carrier is used.
This is my fear. That all the "squadron" mechanics will do is create a small number of super-users that dominate play while the vast majority gain little to nothing for all their efforts.
I disagree given their expected nature: being player movable/re-locatable assets.
Fundamentally, there is no good reason for such assets to be required to be universally cross-instance persistent. Depending on how these assets work in practice doing so may create it's own issues.
Assuming they are not going to be directly pilotable, it may be the case that such things are only going to be re-locatable as part of the weekly Power Play/BGS updates and providing you are registered with the relevant squadron you will know the carrier's location and be able to access it's facilities.
However, assuming they are going to be directly pilotable then they could be tied to the instance of the squadron leader and squadron members could be instance matched with their squadron leader when feasible to do so. It could also be that it is not tied to the squadron leader per se but rather the first/oldest (session wise) squadron member that happens to be logged on.
We know that FD are planning personal player beacons and either of the above two approaches would probably work using a comparable solution.
The current instancing and general networking issues that some may or may not be experiencing are moot in this general discussion.
Last edited:
I think it boils down to this feature catering once again to MP player groups at the exclusion of single players who are not interested in having to form alliances with strangers in order to have access to a new feature.
So... Much like the ultimate reception to Multi-Crew, this will be just another in a long list of major feature additions the majority never asked for or wants, but that take FDEV a ton of time to develop and finally release.
Once it's true nature is discovered, it will then get promptly ignored by the majority of the ED community and thrown on the pile of other features that didn't work and are never revisited/improved/adapted into something the community DOES want.
How's that?
You're saying it like the requirement is extraordinary to do. Like saying, by needing cargo space to go mining caters to people with large ships if they're going to make full use of it.
Agreed it's a feature that it's a feature that caters to player groups, and yes players who play on their own won't likely be able to access a fleet carrier (because it's there to support some form of fleet play) but that's not a bad thing.
it's not like there aren't features in coming that will cater to the lone wolves in the beyond update.
Towards whether squadrons (including fleet carriers) will receive a luke-warm reception of multi-crew which didn't quite hit the mark, we'll see. Frontier have implemented a lot of difficult things to implement and here's hoping for further refinement. At the very least, the Chieftain seems to have three seats in the concept art yet no discernible fighter bay. Maybe there's a new role players can enter?
Personally I'm quite happy to see features that support more group play things. There's not a whole lot to do in the game right now that requires more than 4 people.
BGS, Powerplay, perhaps, sure... but the most fun I've had was through a lot of community initiatives, Fleet Operations, Community Expeditions, Races. I think (with the caveat of waiting for the focused feedback that should be coming some(tm)) squadrons may help support those endeavours and provide in-game drivers to do such things instead of leaving it as a meta game.
where did you quote that quote from btw? We're not sure how things will go with regards to Carrier control. Best to wait for focused feedback that should occur sometime in the new year, as sandro said in the charity stream.
Last edited:
M00dyBoy
Banned
No, we do not know carriers won't be for real money. Frontier have not said that.
M00dyBoy
Banned
They were previously promised and on the roadmap. Known. They are now off the roadmap. Unknown.
I don't know why you're bring timescales into it. No-one else did.
M00dyBoy
Banned
Citation needed for group missions.
Because there's no such think in Frontier's Beyond announcement https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/383217-Frontier-Expo-2017-Recap .
Citation needed for any "careful investigation" Frontier has done since shipping Wings broken two years ago.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
My point regarding timescales being that neither space legs nor atmospheric planetary landings have been stated as arriving in a specific update - hence the reference to time - and the fact that the Beyond series of updates refer to one year of development.
Spacelegs and atmospheric landings have never been on the horizons roadmap... and we still have no detailed roadmap for after horizons, except for the confirmation that there will be paid content that is free for LEP
actuall, it is, you need to review it, its basicly the introduction, the first words of Sandro about the beyond Q1
or in your own link:
oh and from the same post:
Last edited:
Frontier don't say a lot of things.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Personally, I'm looking forward to FDev announcing that fleet carriers only have small pads
I mean, you can't land a Hercules/C-130 on the Ark Royal, let alone an Airbus 380.
I mean, you can't land a Hercules/C-130 on the Ark Royal, let alone an Airbus 380.
Last edited:
Personally, I'm looking forward to FDev announcing that fleet carriers only have small pads
Although FD would never do this I actually wouldn't mind if they did. I think that giving small pad ships an actual niche that fits their role would be a great idea. The problem with that of course is that there are too many combat-capable medium pad ships that would be left out of the carrier mechanic entirely (Keelback, Asp, FDS/FAS/FGS, FDL, Python) and that would mean that the feature will have limited appeal to players. I could possibly see FD implementing carriers with only small and medium pads however much like what we currently have at outposts.
Regardless of whether FD actually excludes large pad ships I do hope that small pad ships are given priority in carrier design and game mechanics. As much as I would enjoy landing my Type 10 on a player-owned carrier I actually think that FD should make the carriers primarily designed for small pad ships, with much more limited access for medium and large ships. I would be fine if there was only a single large pad so that you couldn't turn around an entire wing of Cutters simultaneously. It could be much like how medium ships have to compete for limited docking space at outposts while small pad ships can dock quickly almost everywhere. There should be a design advantage for the small pad ships that allow them to have a rapid turnaround in combat situations when operated from a carrier. It would also have the side effect of encouraging players to work together in small pad ships more often and would give much more of a "squadron" dynamic as well.
I do think that carriers should have some form of capacity limit - something like a fixed number of small and a medium bays. This could possibly be something that could be extended via a CG-style commodity delivery process.
Prioritizing small ship actions over medium also sounds like a nice idea.
I think treating carriers like a big bucket that you can dump all your ships into and carry around would miss out on a lot of opportunities for gameplay.
Don't be silly, you won't buy them with credits. You will buy them with modular terminals and cracked industrial firmware.
Don’t forget the Pharmaceutical Isolators. It will require at least 4,000 of those.