Personal Carriers not so personal with current pad distribution?

Most likely there will be a per cmdr storage limit that is unrealistically high just like there is on every other ship with a shipyard.
 
I really really wish people would stop stating this as fact. You are only digging a hole for yourself, that can only be refilled with salt. In all the little snippets and hints about these new devices, there is NOTHING that even hints at it.
The name Fleet Carrier is as close to 'ship storage confirmed' as you get anywhere. You do know how useless FD are like at naming things accurately. See Wing and Squadron.

If fleet carriers can't carry fleets, then the entire premise of the thread is moot. We all know that there's a risk that FD will do something dumb and stop FC from carrying a fleet, but we've (apart from you, obvs) all agreed that it's a reasonable assumption to make.
 
If fleet carriers can't carry fleets, then the entire premise of the thread is moot. We all know that there's a risk that FD will do something dumb and stop FC from carrying a fleet, but we've (apart from you, obvs) all agreed that it's a reasonable assumption to make.

Not really. I think limiting ships is just as reasonable as not limiting them. 16 ships maximum would be nice for the immersion guys.
 
If fleet carriers can't carry fleets, then the entire premise of the thread is moot. We all know that there's a risk that FD will do something dumb and stop FC from carrying a fleet, but we've (apart from you, obvs) all agreed that it's a reasonable assumption to make.

Not really. I think limiting ships is just as reasonable as not limiting them. 16 ships maximum would be nice for the immersion guys.

The issue in question is whether carriers will be able to hold more than ONE ship owned by each player.

The argument goes as follows: The only way in ED that you can have two ships in the same place is to buy a ship or transfer a ship from another station. FDev may imagine that a FC is used by the owner and their friends. The services offered by the FC will be a subset of the services offered by a station. One of those services is the shipyard but an FC will probably not offer the ability to buy new ships and so they won't have a shipyard. But the shipyard is how you transfer ships to you. And transfer is complex because the FC might move between the transfer being requested and the ship arriving. So FDev may not notice that transfers are not possible, or they might decide that they are too difficult to do. Either way, the FC owner can only have one ship docked.

As SlouchMonster said, it would be a very dumb move for them to make and we generally don't think they are quite that dumb. Cargo storage, on the other hand, I am much less sanguine about.
 
The issue in question is whether carriers will be able to hold more than ONE ship owned by each player.

The argument goes as follows: The only way in ED that you can have two ships in the same place is to buy a ship or transfer a ship from another station. FDev may imagine that a FC is used by the owner and their friends. The services offered by the FC will be a subset of the services offered by a station. One of those services is the shipyard but an FC will probably not offer the ability to buy new ships and so they won't have a shipyard. But the shipyard is how you transfer ships to you. And transfer is complex because the FC might move between the transfer being requested and the ship arriving. So FDev may not notice that transfers are not possible, or they might decide that they are too difficult to do. Either way, the FC owner can only have one ship docked.

As SlouchMonster said, it would be a very dumb move for them to make and we generally don't think they are quite that dumb. Cargo storage, on the other hand, I am much less sanguine about.
Got it, thanks for clarifying. ;)
I thought they were talking about 16 vs unlimited ships rather than 16 vs 1 ship. That's what you get for not reading the entire conversation... ;)
 
What does 'ship availability' mean if not a shipyard?
It's a very strange turn of phrase, and I'm not convinced it means anything.
And what would the loadout change? Does that mean that some carriers do not have shipyards? Contrarty to your point, that quote seems to imply that it is not at all certain that you will be able to have more than one ship on your carrier if you choose, say, a mercenary loadout.
 
With regards to Fleet Carrier jumping while a ship is in transit, a simple interlock on the jump would suffice such that the FC cannot jump whilest a ship is in transit to it.

If a ship transfer facility is available, will it be for FC owner only or will other Commanders be able to use it
Can the FC owner set a limit on transit time for others to use
Will Transfer requests by other Commanders need FC owner approval
Will a return to sender mechanic be implemented to allow the FC to jump before arrival of any ships in Transit
 
The issue in question is whether carriers will be able to hold more than ONE ship owned by each player.

If that would be the case, then sure FC would step up as the new undisputed champion of the game's most worthless additions, even though it's a title with many contenders.
 
Just my line of thoughts. You quite likely can store as many ships as you want, just like on other megaships around. The limitation of pads rather might rather matter in a very unusual situation. This would be when the carrier is not used by a single player moving his fleet around, but in the unlikely case that a squadron might actually use it in the intended way of being able to travel together.

This might make the "now everybody docks, we jump to the target system, launch and wreck havoc" procedure a little harder. Although not by much I would guess. It just would mean that people would dock and log off, till everybody who wants to come along is docked. Then you and launch, so the disconnected people can reconnect.



I actually think that what we saw there was a concept artist fail. Wanted to make good looking graphics and thought that putting the pads so close next to each other looks impressive. Little did they ponder about the implication of internal storage of that picture. I mean, when I looked at that, I even before thinking about the internal storage already noticed that the picture did not include any space for the sliding doors our current landing pads have. Opening one pad on the art we saw there would immediately block two other landing pads.

I am quite certain that if FD hasn't noticed the issue yet based on forum feedback, they will run into it in one of their earlier builds and change things. I mean, megaships are already modular, so I guess in the end they might just be a bit bigger than first planed, to provide the necessary space to carry all the promised landing pads.

So yea... concept art vs. final product. There always are some differences. We will see how things will turn out. I just expect landing pads to get some more space to avoid clipping problems.

Those were in game assets, you don't go to all that trouble to make concept art. That would be a huge waste of resources
 
Theres no ships storage space from the Wire diagram that was shown of the carrier... the carrier also is shown not to have any space to fit ship storage as the ship would be out side the carrier hull or if large ship cut in half by the carrier hull...
Edit Extra info to ninja post above...

I am not saying that you are wrong as the information supplied from Frontier is sparse, with a lot of gaps to be filled in between now and December....

In support of my point, if you watch the announcement video - 1:16 on the video has the landing pads decending into the body of the Fleet carrier.

In support of your point, there is absolutely no mention of any shipyard capacity in the video. There is plenty of commentary on different carrier roles and landing on other peoples carriers (access rights, 16 pads, etc) but nothing about being able to fly multiple ships of your own fleet from the carrier - i.e. nothing that supports my assertion of being able to fly a Corvette into a conflict zone one day and a Krait II into a Thargoid encounter another day, with both ships being held on the carrier.
(worst case scenario, the Fleet carrier will not allow ship transfer and just becomes a 500ly jump ship.)
 
I'd say the chance of worst-case scenario is almost infinitesimally small as to be disregardable, but as you say, nothing to go on.

It wouldn't make sense though and there's always some method in FDs ma... actions. :)

I love the laid back stately debating style there. Looking for facts, not fighting over it.
 
Purely theoretical excerise as I probably won't be able to afford Carrier but theorycrafting doesn't cost credits, so why not.

As we know, carriers will have 16 pads: 8xL / 4xM / 4xS and judging by the promo material it doesn't seem they will have any more capacity beyond that. I'd like to be wrong but for the sake of theorycrafting, let's assume 16 pads = max capacity and this is what we get. This implies we, as a single CMDRs can have max 16 ships docked at the carrier at the same time. And it would be 8 large ships, 4 medium and 4 small ones.

This got me thinking on which ships I would take with me for a really long and deep space journey. And it struck me that landing pad distribution is somewhat against me. Currently I own 20 ships so with limits above I can't take all of them. No big deal, some of them are just hangar queens, covering same roles or simply collection items. But while I didn't have problem with filling L pads (6/8, 2 remaining free) the major problem arose with S-pads and M-pads in particular.

You see, in ED we have 38 ships:
  • 14 small
  • 15 medium
  • 9 large
See where it is going? While single carrier can load up almost every existing large ship (88%) it can take just 28% of small and 26% of medium ones. With medium ships providing the best ratio size : capabilities, limiting only 4 on carrier seems... odd. Well, I'm speaking from solitary CMDR POV that want to take his private fleet and disappear into void for a few months. I haven't done so previously for I cannot commit to one aspect of a game for longer than few weeks. I need change of subject otherwise I get burn out. Idea of having a carrier which will house few different ships sounds great. I could get into exploring and when bored switch to mining. Then I could travel some more to inhabited place, penal colony would do and run some missions for them. Or do combat.

But different choices require different ships, most of them are medium sized. And that we are limited to have. So in my eyes personal carrier isn't that much personal. But again, pure theorycrafting, based on thumb sucked basis, without any real data. I just hope FDEVs thought this really well and my concerns won't come true.
In the ED universe, the NPC population suffers from extreme naviphobia. What this means is the bigger the ship, the more likely the NPC starport authorities will make your attempt to stuff your ridiculously expensive, over sized ship into their mail box slot an exercise of futility. You see, we human Commanders typically tend to get the worse end of this illogical NPC psychological disorder. As proven by the following QoL restrictions when seeking refuge from the black:

# large ship landing pads at any Outpost in the galaxy: 0 total

# large ship landing pads on any Capital ship in the galaxy: 0 total

# large ship landing pads at any Installations of any type in the galaxy: 0 total

# large ship landing pads on Bulk Cruiser ships of any type in the galaxy: 0 total

# large ship landing pads on Generational Ships in any state of dereliction in the galaxy: 0 total

# large ship landing pads on any Detention Center/Wells Class Vessel/Rescue Ships in the galaxy: 1 total

# large ship landing pads at any Asteroid base in the galaxy: 6 total

# large ship landing pads at any Coriollis/Orbis/Ocellus starport in the galaxy: 9 at each

Then FDev finally came to their senses and offered the convenience of a personalized, mobile HQ. With a whopping EIGHT landing pads just short of the total 9 large ships we can own in the game. And yet haters are still going to hate......
 
For people who are saying the Fleet Carrier won't have shipyard, it clearly says it will have both ships and modules available. Which ships and modules are available are different depending on which loadout you are using (Exploration, bounty hunting, etc). See the picture below. As for how many ships it will hold, I'm betting it will work like any other shipyard.
02-jpg.141079
 
For people who are saying the Fleet Carrier won't have shipyard, it clearly says it will have both ships and modules available. Which ships and modules are available are different depending on which loadout you are using (Exploration, bounty hunting, etc). See the picture below. As for how many ships it will hold, I'm betting it will work like any other shipyard.
02-jpg.141079

Yep,

It's going to be a mobile space station with services cut out depending on specialisation.
 
For people who are saying the Fleet Carrier won't have shipyard, it clearly says it will have both ships and modules available. Which ships and modules are available are different depending on which loadout you are using (Exploration, bounty hunting, etc). See the picture below. As for how many ships it will hold, I'm betting it will work like any other shipyard.
02-jpg.141079
Its strange. Does it mean that it has your current ship and also has a load of pre-made ships available to fly. Or is it if you have a bounty hunter support ship, does that mean you can't dock your DBX or AspX to the ship as they are exploration vessels? How does the Fleet carrier decide what ship is a bounty hunter type and what isn't?

So many questions.
 
Those were in game assets, you don't go to all that trouble to make concept art. That would be a huge waste of resources

Hmm. Interesting. In my line of work, making a concept and visualisation before implementation is considered to be so very helpful that not doing that is considered a waste of resources. You can save yourself so time and effort by making an early visualisation, where you can already spot and correct problems which otherwise would've only become obvious after building and implementing everything.

Which is why i hope the above example is just that: concept art. We found problems, we pointed them out. Thus FD can correct things ahead of time. This is much better than already having invested a lot of design and development work into these things to then, when first time trying it out after coding it all, running into problems and having to redesign significant parts.
 
While FD advertises that you can "command you own" carrier that doesn't imply that you can carry around your own fleet. There is no confirmation that I know that the carriers work as your own private shipyard. You get a carrier and can switch to a support ship is what we know.
 
Hmm. Interesting. In my line of work, making a concept and visualisation before implementation is considered to be so very helpful that not doing that is considered a waste of resources. You can save yourself so time and effort by making an early visualisation, where you can already spot and correct problems which otherwise would've only become obvious after building and implementing everything.

Which is why i hope the above example is just that: concept art. We found problems, we pointed them out. Thus FD can correct things ahead of time. This is much better than already having invested a lot of design and development work into these things to then, when first time trying it out after coding it all, running into problems and having to redesign significant parts.

Unsure of your line of work, and I'm sure you're right.

From my (admittedly, not in such a large company) knowledge though, this kind of thing can be designed and concepted on paper, and with basic block out models, without going to the considerable effort of UV mapping, fully texturing, setting up normal, specular, and many many more, maps, and adding animations and all the control systems, and getting it to work, in engine.

From the simple and cheap(er) designs you can work out any problems before you get your technical artists to make all of the stuff that gets a model into the game engine to the level shown in that video.

Take a look at some of their previous concept art (there's a whole book of it) I've not seen any concept work that ran in engine, the one small exception is the ice planet in engine render of a new shader for patches of ice, but that was a single patch, and also likely production quality and complete (as far as that specific element was concerned) there was then a load of concept art to go with it, which is what they were working from.

Anyway... Yeah, my thoughts are that these things in the video are completed in game assets, like when they have shown us new finished ships in previous videos.

I'm sure there's a bunch of tech and code being fiddled with, but those assets are done.
 
Its strange. Does it mean that it has your current ship and also has a load of pre-made ships available to fly. Or is it if you have a bounty hunter support ship, does that mean you can't dock your DBX or AspX to the ship as they are exploration vessels? How does the Fleet carrier decide what ship is a bounty hunter type and what isn't?

So many questions.

No, of course not. Judging by what the it says on that description, your loadout type determines what modules and ships are available (I wasn't expecting it to have ships available, but the description implies it). There is zero chance that they have some arbitrary restriction against certain ships based on their purpose (exploration, combat, etc). For example, how would they classify an Anaconda? It can be outfitted for combat or exploration (as can pretty much every ship). Not feasible.
 
Back
Top Bottom