I know for some this may sound childish, but if they will not be destructible, it's just boring content.
ANNOUNCEMENT Gamescom Reveals - Fleet Carrier Details
- Status
Concerning space travel: As carriers do not seem to be able to supercruise and jump targets are selected via the galactic map:
I see lots of potential but also many situations to be handled in code ...
- does this mean it would directly Jump to any selectable entity in system maps (planets, rings, stations)?
- if so it could be sent directly to Hutton Orbital?
- can we sent it to signal sources or only static entities (see above)?
- if a commander places the carrier at any one station, is this then blocked for other player carriers?
I see lots of potential but also many situations to be handled in code ...
Arx differs from the points the console players have to use to buy stuff already only by being on all platforms and by being earnable in some way by playing. Which is not a major change.
New ship models are normal, and remember there are no major changes to the game until late next year.
Last edited:
The hype just got real, nice!
It is going to depend also on the questions what is the fuel source and how is it loaded into the Carrier. I seriously doubt fuel limpets will be involved.
How about selectable liveries? I'd quite like an Archon Delaine pirate carrier.
They certainly look shiny!
A few thoughts about Fleet Carriers:
Fleet Carriers were initially billed as content for Squadrons ('Important Community Update' Aug 31, 2018 - "[...]Fleet Carriers for squadrons will not be coming as part of the Beyond - Chapter Four update."). Why has the proposed implementation changed from Squadron content over to a single commander offering?
I understand solo players will want access to all available content, which is of course fair, however my understanding was that a single commander was not prohibited from establishing a Squad-of-one, which would then allow them fair access to FCs if they wished?
I see a number of concerns around decoupling FCs from Squadrons in regards to their utility to group players:
Persistence - If a Fleet Carrier is tied to a single commander only, is persistence of a FC in the Galaxy dependent upon whether said commander is logged into the game? How is the asset managed by the game exactly? The hope was that by linking a FC to a Squadron that would allow FCs persistence for the entire Squadron by having the FC asset tied to whichever members happened to be online at a given time, rather than rely upon a single "owner" commander needing to be always logged in for the FC to be available to use by the Squadron.
Pooling Resources - if a Fleet Carrier is linked only to a single commander, does that preclude Squadrons from contributing to its initial purchase cost, as well as running costs for jumps / outfitting? If a Squadron wants to maintain a FC and it is only owned and managed by a single commander, this places an onerous burden on that player and removes the opportunity for Squadron contributions.
Permissions - it seemed intuitive to tie FCs to the Squadron management UI. Not linking them places another burden on the owner commander of a FC that a Squadron wants to utilise: having the single owner fully responsible for designating access permissions to the FC and plotting jumps / configuration options. If FCs were instead linked to Squadrons they could make use of the current Squadron member permissions settings, allowing members of a given rank to take on FC management if, for example, the FC owner is offline or otherwise unavailable.
Hoping for a FD response to these points
Thanks for the update!
A few thoughts about Fleet Carriers:
Fleet Carriers were initially billed as content for Squadrons ('Important Community Update' Aug 31, 2018 - "[...]Fleet Carriers for squadrons will not be coming as part of the Beyond - Chapter Four update."). Why has the proposed implementation changed from Squadron content over to a single commander offering?
I understand solo players will want access to all available content, which is of course fair, however my understanding was that a single commander was not prohibited from establishing a Squad-of-one, which would then allow them fair access to FCs if they wished?
I see a number of concerns around decoupling FCs from Squadrons in regards to their utility to group players:
Persistence - If a Fleet Carrier is tied to a single commander only, is persistence of a FC in the Galaxy dependent upon whether said commander is logged into the game? How is the asset managed by the game exactly? The hope was that by linking a FC to a Squadron that would allow FCs persistence for the entire Squadron by having the FC asset tied to whichever members happened to be online at a given time, rather than rely upon a single "owner" commander needing to be always logged in for the FC to be available to use by the Squadron.
Pooling Resources - if a Fleet Carrier is linked only to a single commander, does that preclude Squadrons from contributing to its initial purchase cost, as well as running costs for jumps / outfitting? If a Squadron wants to maintain a FC and it is only owned and managed by a single commander, this places an onerous burden on that player and removes the opportunity for Squadron contributions.
Permissions - it seemed intuitive to tie FCs to the Squadron management UI. Not linking them places another burden on the owner commander of a FC that a Squadron wants to utilise: having the single owner fully responsible for designating access permissions to the FC and plotting jumps / configuration options. If FCs were instead linked to Squadrons they could make use of the current Squadron member permissions settings, allowing members of a given rank to take on FC management if, for example, the FC owner is offline or otherwise unavailable.
Hoping for a FD response to these points
Thanks for the update!
I think that’s called doesn’t matter.
I wonder if one of the variants of Fleet Carrier will be Prison - so when we get a minor bounty at a local station we reappear in our own FC rather than 100's of LY away, in the Pleiades for example, like happened to me in the WH nebula today
Shush. I see absolutely no issues with persistence and/or permissions.
Tying the FC to squadrons would also have a lot of implications and it would be limiting their usability.
The clean and fair solution IS to tie them to player accounts.
How so exactly?
Strong argument.
That's like comparing two different car's performance and then tripping over one's color.
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
I have 230 hours and own 2 corvettes, 1 cutter, 1 anaconda, 1 type 9 and lots of more ships.
What does it tell us? Well tbh I have no Idea except that if you have a goal to work to, you can get to you goal.
I originally wanted to explore, but the thought of owning these large vessels has shifted my attention towards credits making.
Now after not playing for 2 weeks (because I'm waiting until I have a high enough Power Play level), this announcement now made me focus on a new goal:
Get tons of credits to purchase a carrier.
This comes slightly closer than a politician to answering any questions, without actually telling us anything.
So we get a total of 16 pads, and we can play traffic controller and grant or deny docking to someone else.
There are still a number of unanswered, somewhat vital questions, such as:
Ownership:
How do we get aboard a Carrier?
I would guess these too large to park at a station, which means we’re going to have to claim one of the 16 pads, land and “transfer”, I suspect similar to how we board a fighter or SRV.
This leads into a Core Services question. Since these are clearly labeled as “Personal”, how do we, assuming we can, move another ship to said Carrier? I would guess there to be some manner of lightweight shipyard feature to transfer another ship to said Carrier.
Which segues into the next question - is there any functional differences between the different Carrier models, or do they simply look different? Could an “Exploration” Carrier be used for Mercenary work, or a Mining Carrier be use for Search and Rescue work? In short, are the different models just different models or are they actually different?
Moving on to Travel, I note that it specifically states we can “Schedule jumps from the galaxy map whenever you want and from wherever you are in the galaxy.” Does this mean that Carrier jumps will be processed like Megaship moves - once a week, from Point A to Point B, up to 500 light years maximum at a time, and said Carrier will be moved on the Thursday update tick?
I’m OK with this, but I do want to know.
That just leaves this “Unique” fuel. Clearly this isn’t the stuff our little ships run on, so is it safe to assume this will be some manner of collectible item, requiring either cargo space aboard a small ship, or a Material or similar sort of stored good.
Clearly I don’t expect answers here, but if these could be addressed in either an upcoming release or livestream there would be a lot of happy people around, myself included.
So we get a total of 16 pads, and we can play traffic controller and grant or deny docking to someone else.
There are still a number of unanswered, somewhat vital questions, such as:
Ownership:
How do we get aboard a Carrier?
I would guess these too large to park at a station, which means we’re going to have to claim one of the 16 pads, land and “transfer”, I suspect similar to how we board a fighter or SRV.
This leads into a Core Services question. Since these are clearly labeled as “Personal”, how do we, assuming we can, move another ship to said Carrier? I would guess there to be some manner of lightweight shipyard feature to transfer another ship to said Carrier.
Which segues into the next question - is there any functional differences between the different Carrier models, or do they simply look different? Could an “Exploration” Carrier be used for Mercenary work, or a Mining Carrier be use for Search and Rescue work? In short, are the different models just different models or are they actually different?
Moving on to Travel, I note that it specifically states we can “Schedule jumps from the galaxy map whenever you want and from wherever you are in the galaxy.” Does this mean that Carrier jumps will be processed like Megaship moves - once a week, from Point A to Point B, up to 500 light years maximum at a time, and said Carrier will be moved on the Thursday update tick?
I’m OK with this, but I do want to know.
That just leaves this “Unique” fuel. Clearly this isn’t the stuff our little ships run on, so is it safe to assume this will be some manner of collectible item, requiring either cargo space aboard a small ship, or a Material or similar sort of stored good.
Clearly I don’t expect answers here, but if these could be addressed in either an upcoming release or livestream there would be a lot of happy people around, myself included.
Ooh this is exciting news. I can't wait to get one.
- Status