Deleted member 110222
D
I have a carrier. It's called a Coriolis.
Please don't lock huge capital/carrier ships to only groups.
- Thread starter Aaron T
- Start date
Awesome, I love the stations myself.
It does not have to be good for anything period.
One reason folks love ATS is that they have their own shop.
If I want one for nothing else than to park my ship at it and take a screenshot and video of my own little slice of space then that is good enough.
What is it with some ED players, "I want it this way, but not their way, their way is stupid and useless to me."
We will get what we get, but I don't care if you think whatever is useless, or cannot understand why anyone would want something you care less about.
The problem with space is that it's full of people, and people do not like to agree on very many things.
I have no issues with people having fleet carriers. I am just pointing out the uselessness of them. I doubt you will even be able to have your fleet there as I doubt they will have shipyard.
Now a personal base on a planet or asteroid I can get behind especially if it has a shipyard and you can store all your ships there.
But a fleet carrier that can carry one ship, the one you are flying seems utterly pointless and a load of development and server stressing for no real value.
Last edited:
Gotchya now, I misunderstood.
People just want something new or different.
Link to relevant stream please?
There are two potential points in play here - (a) cap on carriers in a given instance and (b) cap on carriers in general. The former is notionally acceptable and expected - the latter should not be the case. A fleet carrier is expected to be a static object too - not directly pilotable based on what we have been told to date. Even if they are pilotable, they should generate no more network traffic for the pilot than if they were piloting a single ship. If the carriers are visible outside of a squadron instance, then providing non-squadron members can make use of their facilities (c/f Jacques station) then things become a lot more grey. If a squadron can dictate who can and can not dock with their carrier, then it should be limited in visibility to instances with squadron members (assuming some soft cap on carriers in a given instance has not been reached).
Neither should equate to there being a need to have hard limits on who can own a carrier. Just to be clear, I am talking about "squadrons" owning a carrier regardless of their membership size.
GTA Online includes the concept of yachts, expensive relocatable and indestructible bases with a soft-cap on the number of yachts on a given map (for practical implementation reasons - limited designated spawning points).
Ultimately, the networking argument is (or should be) a non-argument with players who play primarily in (smaller) Private Groups or Solo. Spawning limits for Open mode and larger Private Groups would be with-in the realms of expected implementation restrictions.
Last edited:
You seem to be putting a lot of weight on the "carrier" aspect and ignoring the other aspects.
Where development is concerned, it is a non-issue as it is being developed regardless - the point is not whether a given individual finds utility in it but that if someone does find utility and value in it they should have access.
As for server stressing, ED is not a client server architecture thus the ACTUAL server load should be minimal on a per carrier basis... based on my professional experience I would expect something akin to an XML record per carrier - complexity of that data depends on various factors depending on implementation decisions but it should not be anything like as bad as some seem to be expecting. In relation to network load, it seems more of an excuse than a legitimate technical reason.
A personal base on a planet should be largely the same thing in overall data/cpu load - the data and networking requirements should largely be the same if not lower for the carrier case.
Last edited:
Squadrons - no, no tangible benefits merely a method of improving group communication and organisation. No problems with squadrons in themselves.
Carriers - yes, these have a tangible benefit and therefore should not be locked behind group gameplay.
In past discussions about personal bases, carriers were the most logical answer to that desire. The sticking point comes with what facilities such bases provide. If they are merely ways of moving multiple players as a single unit and/or just providing a single place to organise activities around then for single players they may as well not exist. Add respawn, refuel, rearm, or repair facilities and then even for a single player their potential utility becomes measurable. Add player personal ship swapping/exchange and the utility escalates even further. Add player personal ship storage and they start to become at least borderline OP in terms of capability.
I am surprised that you can't see the difference between something that is static and something that moves with all you experience.
Data wise there is (or atleast should be) fundamentally no (significant) difference - both have a location in space defined in terms of at least 3 parameters - the Carrier is not pilotable thus it is likely to be in a notionally stationary position in space relative to one body or another between ship movements (c/f NPC space based facilities).
Even if they were pilotable, then the load would be no different to a player's own ship (which by necessity - or at least common sense - would be docked either at the carrier or elsewhere).
I am not surprised that some people may not appreciate the data requirement similarities.
Last edited:
You are seeing this as one person owning a fleet carrier. Most could have multiple commanders or even 100s on when they jump. All information needs updating via the servers when the jump occurs on these ships. If there are hundreds of these fleet carriers then I am sure you can see the potential issues.
You are assuming a lot here and you shouldn't. We do not know how the server structure works.
We are not necessarily talking huge volumes of information here - and should not be.
When ships are docked they notionally are docked with a specific entity with a single id. If that entity changes position there are many ways the required information could be propagated. Even then, it would not matter if we are talking one carrier with 100 people or 100 people with a carrier each - the latter case might be a problem in Open but in Solo and smaller private groups the master database could be updated in relative slow time. There are many ways these things can be managed and given the data volumes we are almost certainly talking some kind of SQL/OO database based backend - anything else would make little or no sense given the expected number of micro-transactions and complexity of the shared universe state.
If there are any assumptions I am making it is that FD have at least some technical nous in their team - there are well known best practices and software patterns that are fair and natural assumptions. If FD do not use any of them then there are going to be greater issues in the long run than the number of player squadron owned fleet carriers.
Fundamentally, if FD are saying that Fleet Carriers are going to be limited in quantity you can probably forget any hope of having a personal base of operations in any form external to NPC facilities.
Last edited:
I don't want to step into this argument too far, but here's some info on the architecture of Elite:
https://lavewiki.com/technical#data-services
At the top of the page is a link to a video where all of this is explained.
As I'm here: No, it shouldn't be any issue at all for the backend. I'd begin to think about problems with the much needed introduction of a player economy with hundrets of transactions every second. But this is childs play.
https://lavewiki.com/technical#data-services
At the top of the page is a link to a video where all of this is explained.
As I'm here: No, it shouldn't be any issue at all for the backend. I'd begin to think about problems with the much needed introduction of a player economy with hundrets of transactions every second. But this is childs play.
This is also a potential limit, which I believe is what was discussed on the live stream, about the maximum number of fleet carriers in a particular system. If, for example, there are 100+ fleet carriers in a one system (say, a CG system), then your navigational panel will be flooded with them. Not to mention a limit to how many can be in orbit around a particular body before they are too close together. Of course, this all assumes that Fleet Carriers will be visible to people that do not belong to the carrier's particular squadron.
As far as data goes, the game only needs to know which fleet carriers are in the system that the player is currently in. And, depending on visibility, it's possible the client only needs to know about the player's own carrier.
For personal bases, OTOH, it would be reasonable to limit the number to, say 1-4, for each landable body. This would limit the total number in each system to a manageable number and still provide players with a vast quantity of potential base locations, even inside the bubble. This limit would also mean that it would be very easy for all player bases to be visible and usable by any player, regardless of mode or platform. A huge advantage over the fleet carrier idea which, by it's very nature, will tend to have the carriers fly around in packs.
Last edited:
My point about Carriers per instance covers that one to at least some degree. They could control the numbers in one of two simple ways (a) first come first served population with a soft-cap which would be work-aroundable with Solo/PG mode (c/f GTA Online) or (b) Carrier owners joining a specific instance at a Carrier spawn point where their squadron's carrier resides (c/f ESO homes). There are also other ways this could be done without imposing hard limits on minimum squadron sizes or maximum numbers of carriers.
Last edited:
I just remembered the #1 reason why they should allow individual CMDRs to own fleet carriers. Because the more people that can buy carriers, the more cosmetics that Frontier can sell.
What is the point of not allowing people to enjoy an aspect of the game? It has nothing to do with anyone else, and will turn a lot of people off.
Who cares? If a single person is willing to grind the absurd amounts, let them. And stop comparing everything you do to other people. If someone else getting something it took and your friends a while to get makes it worse to you, then that's your problem. Massive squadrons will also get it much easier than small ones.
And I say: So what? Because some people getting annoyed someone else got something easier, or that something is "too easy" is nothing compared to a hard content block for many players.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Its not about that. Its about making the multiplayer part of this game work.
You want to have multiplayer assets. You do multiplayer things.
Giving the single player every aspect of the game really hurts group gameplay. Because you dont need to be in a group to experience that content.
Its a major problem in all corners of elite dangerous. Not just these carriers.