Please reconsider fleet carriers for solo players.

[Robert Maynard]

In any other MMO that would be decried as a serious exploit! Here? It's a feature!

It's a good job that this isn't your average trope following MMO then.

Also, just saying, what if they go down the bid-2-rent road? You can't rule that out. It accommodates your words. (Full Squadron can bid and then reduce to one member), but realistically that would mean nobody would do it, as it would make maintaining a Sqaudron for the job of maintaining a carrier mandatory.

Rent, not buy? Would be considered to be "grind to maintain" - and would penalise player groups that don't play much.

Assets that degrade / cost when offline aren't particularly popular.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Fleet Carriers is going to disappoint a lot of people when it comes out no matter what it is because it's represents so many different thing to different people. Way back when Frontier asked for peoples thoughts on the Fleet Carriers feature the input was so diverse that you could hardly find a trend.

Indeed - in an information vacuum players will theory craft all sorts of possible outcomes, the vast majority of them inaccurate predictions - and some players will be disappointed.

It happens all the time.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

It's a good job that this isn't your average trope following MMO then.

Rent, not buy? Would be considered to be "grind to maintain" - and would penalise player groups that don't play much.

Assets that degrade / cost when offline aren't particularly popular.

Yes. And if it does indeed turn out that FD wants to have carriers as pure multiplayer content, then it is the only road to go down.

Works wonders in many other games, and I cannot stress enough: ED is not special in this regard.

"grind-2-maintain" encourages competition and active gameplay for an extended peiod, which is, you know, kinda' essential in an online game.

People complain about not having any goals in ED. Guess what? "Bid-2-rent" would largely fix this problem. And yes, there will be losers. It's a game. Not everyone gets a trophy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes. And if it does indeed that FD wants to have carriers as pure multiplayer content, then it is the only road to go down.

Works wonders in many other games, and I cannot stress enough: ED is not special in this regard.

"grind-2-maintain" encourages competition and active gameplay for an extended peiod, which is, you know, kinda' essential in an online game.

People complain about not having any goals in ED. Guess what? "Bid-2-rent" would largely fix this problem. And yes, there will be losers. It's a game. Not everyone gets a trophy.

It would be a bit of a disappointment to me if the long awaited Fleet Carriers were placed behind a maintenance grind-wall.

As ever, we'll have to wait and see what Frontier have in mind - when they choose to tell us more about them.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

It would be a bit of a disappointment to me if the long awaited Fleet Carriers were placed behind a maintenance grind-wall.

As ever, we'll have to wait and see what Frontier have in mind - when they choose to tell us more about them.

Indeed. All I'm saying is my logic is not without reason.

You may not like it, but in online games, the best way to maintain active gameplay is encourage competition. And I'm afraid that means some people will come out the losers, and to be losers, you have to get diminished or even no rewards.

But what makes a video game so different to some friends playing a game of footie? Someone has to lose, or there is no game.

 

[Ian Skippy]

From how they spoke about it last year it seemed very much they see carriers as an 'MMO endgame guild content', with a repeatable gameplay loop to get it moving and a sense of shared ownership. Extrapolating a bit, I wouldn't be surprised to see that base building scales down to solo players.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Indeed. All I'm saying is my logic is not without reason.

You may not like it, but in online games, the best way to maintain active gameplay is encourage competition. And I'm afraid that means some people will come out the losers, and to be losers, you have to get diminished or even no rewards.

But what makes a video game so different to some friends playing a game of footie? Someone has to lose, or there is no game.

Guilds, shared goals, endgame gameplay loops and competition. Squadrons, carriers, carrier maintenance/fuel and leaderboards. Makes total sense, even when it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You may not like it, but in online games, the best way to maintain active gameplay is encourage competition.

There's a fine line between games that encourage healthy competition and those that effectively become a second job.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Indeed. All I'm saying is my logic is not without reason.

You may not like it, but in online games, the best way to maintain active gameplay is encourage competition. And I'm afraid that means some people will come out the losers, and to be losers, you have to get diminished or even no rewards.

But what makes a video game so different to some friends playing a game of footie? Someone has to lose, or there is no game.

That is pure PvP speak. There is plenty of examples of long term PvE titles . Sure there is a loser... But personally I don't care if NPC's get the raw end of the stick

 

[Flimley]

Been pondering before posting and think I would like to take a small sized carrier off into the black with a few choice ships and supplies. Yes, that would be grande.

Flimley.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

That is pure PvP speak. There is plenty of examples of long term PvE titles . Sure there is a loser... But personally I don't care if NPC's get the raw end of the stick

You know PvE in MMOs is even more competitive than PvP in the same games right?

Leaderboards, bidding for vendors...

PvE =/= noncompetitive.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

There's a fine line between games that encourage healthy competition and those that effectively become a second job.

Yet the games that are "treated like second jobs" are also the most successful.

 

[Siobhan]

From how they spoke about it last year it seemed very much they see carriers as an 'MMO endgame guild content', with a repeatable gameplay loop to get it moving and a sense of shared ownership. Extrapolating a bit, I wouldn't be surprised to see that base building scales down to solo players.

So people will be owning them after what, 4 days, a week? That is what's considered end-game these days, right?
And then complaining that the game makes them impossible to manage of course...

 

[Ian Skippy]

There's a fine line between games that encourage healthy competition and those that effectively become a second job.

That is why different parts of the game appeal to different people. Some want high-investment gameplay, others are far more 'casual'. It becomes only a problem when someone with lower investment expects to do everything in the game, by himself.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

From how they spoke about it last year it seemed very much they see carriers as an 'MMO endgame guild content', with a repeatable gameplay loop to get it moving and a sense of shared ownership. Extrapolating a bit, I wouldn't be surprised to see that base building scales down to solo players.

Again, how do we know that carriers are not the base building mechanism

 

[Flimley]

Again, how do we know that carriers are not the base building mechanism

That’s quite possible.

Flimley

 

[Ian Skippy]

Again, how do we know that carriers are not the base building mechanism

Simple: the whole 'base building' premise is based solely upon one leak. That leak said base building was part of the 2020 update. Carriers are not. So if the leak is correct and there will be basebuilding, it will be different from carriers.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

That is why different parts of the game appeal to different people. Some want high-investment gameplay, others are far more 'casual'. It becomes only a problem when someone with lower investment expects to do everything in the game, by himself.

Exactly. This is the problem so many ED players seem to have. They want all the rewards for minimal effort.

By making carriers "available to everyone", all you do is leave no content for hardcore guild-gamers. And like it or not, but those hardcores are a very important part of the community, as far as keeping the game active is concerned. They need a bone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is why different parts of the game appeal to different people. Some want high-investment gameplay, others are far more 'casual'. It becomes only a problem when someone with lower investment expects to do everything in the game, by himself.

Indeed - however it may also become a problem for Squadrons who may have more than sufficient members to acquire their carrier but don't have the luxury of huge amounts of free time to game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly. This is the problem so many ED players seem to have. They want all the rewards for minimal effort.

By making carriers "available to everyone", all you do is leave no content for hardcore guild-gamers. And like it or not, but those hardcores are a very important part of the community, as far as keeping the game active is concerned. They need a bone.

In what way would there be "no content for hardcore guild-gamers" - unless a requirement of content for them is that other players can't get access to it?