ANNOUNCEMENT Gamescom Reveals - Fleet Carrier Details

[Ian Skippy]

Why do some people seem to be annoyed by the fact any player can have his fleet carrier? Does Average Joe having a fleet carrier takes anything away from Average Jane?

.... because some people like, or would like, features to be arbitrarily restricted (as long as it suits their playstyle that is).

Not entirely. Some believe that making them available to all means they shifted design away from them being a multiplayer-gameplay-enhancement. What that means exactly isn't quite clear to me, but the concept itself is interesting to consider. For example, lets look at the 'fuel grind'. This has to be balanced to some intended 'default usage situation'. If that is a group of 40 active players, whatever fuel 'grind' is considered reasonable will be prohibitively silly for solo players. But if they make it reasonable to solo players, an active squadron will be jumping all over the galaxy in no-time. And the only way I see to prevent that in this situation is by adding cooldown timers, in other words limiting the abilities of a group of players for the sake solo players.

This is all just hypothethical, but there are scenario''s where 'people not being inclusive' is not just because 'hurdur they so nasty ugh'.

 

[Henoch]

Adding a bit of tinfoil: the fleet carriers arrive in December. We can get used to them. In 2020 we will have the next major update. It will bring us new content with the need to escape (or flee) from the bubble. That is why we need this 500ly jump into the then unlocked systems or elsewhere.

 

[shunulu]

My guesses;
1- Fleet Carriers have modular modules. You can purchase them one by one when you have enough credits. Every modules will be cost 1+ Billion (1.5 B my guess) (Modules are about Bounty hunting, Exploring, Pirating etc.) Fleet Carrier base (entry) model will be seperate. We will add other modules onto this. Base model will be obligatory and must purchase separately (3 B my guess)
2- Every jump requires lots of material. That's why we can not use it to go Galaxy core quickly. Excessively materials we must gathered cost us lots lots of time.
3- For example; we will use it for bounty hunting. Then we will fight fugitive ships and dock to our fleet carrier. For Bounty vouchers, Re-arm, re-fuel re-etc. Or we will use it for Exploring. Then we will return it for selling Cartographic data.

These are just my guesses. FD's facts can be mooore different )

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not entirely. Some believe that making them available to all means they shifted design away from them being a multiplayer-gameplay-enhancement.

.... and what is multi-player if not a preferred play-style?

This is all just hypothethical, but there are scenario''s where 'people not being inclusive' is not just because 'hurdur they so nasty ugh'.

Indeed there are, however some have expressed their dismay at everyone being able to purchase a Carrier in a manner that seems to make their position quite clear.

 

[askavir]

There's another argument though against carriers being too easily available: Immersion. If every Joe can have his own carrier, the notion of anything 'special' would be nullified.

That ship has already sailed long ago, when the most common player ships are Anacondas and Cutters...

 

[Lightspeed]

There's another argument though against carriers being too easily available: Immersion. If every Joe can have his own carrier, the notion of anything 'special' would be nullified.

Yes .... after 4 years, I've just reached the point where I could purchase and operate a Cutter. It has allowed me about 3 weeks of basking in an End Game Ship before the announcement that ....err actually, this is now only a Mid-range ship

 

[thistle]

If it was down to me I’d refuel from gas giants using the support ship.

Don't make me start hoping .... damn it.

 

[Lightspeed]

It's an interesting discussion - FD have completely U-turned from their initial concept that "you can see another player's Fleet Carrier, and the changes they make to it, but you can't board it." I wonder what changed their mind.

 

[Ashnak]

It's an interesting discussion - FD have completely U-turned from their initial concept that "you can see another player's Fleet Carrier, and the changes they make to it, but you can't board it." I wonder what changed their mind.

Most likely, the marketing person who created the first vision received a stern talking to from the people actually responsible for the implementation.

 

[Requiem Mortis]

It's an interesting discussion - FD have completely U-turned from their initial concept that "you can see another player's Fleet Carrier, and the changes they make to it, but you can't board it." I wonder what changed their mind.

Probably to do with the fact they are no longer Squadron only assets, no squadron means no filter to landing on them.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Probably to do with the fact they are no longer Squadron only assets, no squadron means no filter to landing on them.

Actually, of what little we know one snippet is that the owner can set filters on who can land...

 

[Factabulous]

It's an interesting discussion - FD have completely U-turned from their initial concept that "you can see another player's Fleet Carrier, and the changes they make to it, but you can't board it." I wonder what changed their mind.

I would imagine they were listening to the community. There was certainly more talk about personal FC than Squad based ones, and the idea of 'open' carriers that everyone can dock at was assumed by some as well. At the moment it seems that they haven't changed 'you can see other FC' so the only real change is 'FC owner sets permissions' - which is more important once you detach them from Squadrons

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's an interesting discussion - FD have completely U-turned from their initial concept that "you can see another player's Fleet Carrier, and the changes they make to it, but you can't board it." I wonder what changed their mind.

Well its about simplicity and trying to please as many people at the same time I imagine.

A personal, instanced, invisible (presumed depending on permissions) mobile locker for your fleet and squadron use is about as much as you could do without getting into interesting territory- like BGS effects, PP intergration, damage etc.

 

[askavir]

Not entirely. Some believe that making them available to all means they shifted design away from them being a multiplayer-gameplay-enhancement. What that means exactly isn't quite clear to me, but the concept itself is interesting to consider. For example, lets look at the 'fuel grind'. This has to be balanced to some intended 'default usage situation'. If that is a group of 40 active players, whatever fuel 'grind' is considered reasonable will be prohibitively silly for solo players. But if they make it reasonable to solo players, an active squadron will be jumping all over the galaxy in no-time. And the only way I see to prevent that in this situation is by adding cooldown timers, in other words limiting the abilities of a group of players for the sake solo players.

This is all just hypothethical, but there are scenario''s where 'people not being inclusive' is not just because 'hurdur they so nasty ugh'.

True, however I think multiplayer/group mechanics should stand on their own merits, not just rely on cutting them off from individuals to justify their existence.

What I mean is things aimed at group play should simply be done more effectively by groups, not because there is a hidden switch banning said things from individuals.

Imagine for instance a future where combat in ED is not just dogfighting in the void, and you can for instance join a faction war, not by casually showing up and picking red or blue, but join a military campaign and get missions like attack some military base planetside. Said planetside base would have assets to bomb, anti-aircraft artillery, and launch pads where enemy ships would scramble to intercept you.

I would say such scenario would be done much better in a wing (and probably more fun too), which would perform the mission much more effectively - thus being aimed primarily at group content. BUT IF some Johnny Lonewolf hotshot maverick ace super-pilot decided to tackle the task by himself, even tough he will have a much harder time, then why the hell not? Things don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. The benefit of playing in a group should be increased effectiveness, not content exclusivity.

The same with fleet carriers, in your own post you already realize that a group of players using a carriers will already be able to fuel it up much faster than Johnny Lonesome. The only drawback I see so far (for groups) is that they won't be able to get a carriers by pooling resources.

 

[aRJay]

Coriolis is listing 8A scooping at 1.68t/s - assuming that's right tho.
but can you sell fuel?

One canister of fuel (limpet) per canister of Void Opals, the trouble is the Fuel Rats undercut everyone trying to sell fuel.

 

[aRJay]

You will have to collect antimatter, just outside the event horizon of black holes.

Or for the increased range option collect matter just inside the event horizon.

 

[Calendra]

So instead of a common effort of a squadron to buy and use fleet carriers, thing that could encourage people to play together for a common goal, we will only have a new bigger and very expensive ship? I'm actually a bit disapointed, i was expecting this to be a good reason to be in a squad, and a real use for a squad except those shared bookmarks.

 

[aRJay]

Biggest Jump possible has been set at 500 LY's - But do Fleet Carriers have an economic jump if so what is the max total range on a full tank ?

Edit: Is the jump range affected by mass of FC only or total mass of FC + content like our current ships

Can they even jump less than 500Ly?

 

[777Driver]

Or for the increased range option collect matter just inside the event horizon.

That would break the universe and causality.. Carriers probably run of Hawking Radiation.

@aRJay - Max jump is 500LY

 

[Kzak]

Perhaps a new fuel type that can only be scooped inside the jet cones of neutron stars?