Well, I thought to have to grind 5 Bn for it.
Now I have to grind ~6Bn and be save for one year of upkeep, so... 4 more LTD sessions
(if I did the math correct - let's better do 7.5.Bn for two years
)
Fleet carriers for exploration
- Thread starter marx
- Start date
Now I have to grind ~6Bn and be save for one year of upkeep, so... 4 more LTD sessions
(if I did the math correct - let's better do 7.5.Bn for two years
)i'm not sure why you changed my comment. Maybe my opinion does not suit you?
It was just for brevity's sake, to shorten the post.
You state how you don't see a need for UC on the carrier, but then you state how the carrier doesn't seem to bring any advantages for exploration.
And that is precisely the problem. The carriers need UC on board in order to make them useful for explorers.
Corrected.
Regarding fuel for the FC. Watching the video again I noticed that it displays the current fuel as 500/1000t and the current maximum range as 500LY. But it doesn't say anywhere how much fuel is needed to jump 500LY or how many jumps of 500LY could be made with 500t of fuel. It could be any number between 1t and 500t.
Is there some other info I'm missing that actually gives details of the fuel usage and range... or is everyone else just guessing too?
Is there some other info I'm missing that actually gives details of the fuel usage and range... or is everyone else just guessing too?
As a mostly-solo and long-term explorer I'm currently unable to get excited about FC, as much as I was looking fwd to them. Being beither able nor interested to buy one, I would be gladly using/visiting FC of other CMDRs, if they offered relevant gameplay mechanics for me which, unfortunately, I think they currently don't.
The following sort of things would get me excited, or at least interested:
The following sort of things would get me excited, or at least interested:
- Sell or store exploration data. I'd be willing to forfeit 10-20% of the payout in order to pay for storage, thus supporting the upkeep of the commander providing the FC. A possible transmission back home could be optional, at an additional price. Both are trade-offs between risk and reward.
- Ability to find FC based on filters and a set of attributes provided by the CMDR owning the FC, e.g. owner (CMDR name), purpose (exploration, combat, ...), status (static, en route with destination and rough schedule, ...), access (open, private with name of group), services (UC, repairs, reload, modules, ...).
- Ability to coordinate local exploration, e.g. via "missions" created by the owner, who in turn would be supported by UC-funtionality to complie the content of those missions (e.g. the ability to list all white dwarves within 250 ly and "attach" that to a mission; similar stuff for combat). Combining this with an ability to share missions with other CMDRs (maybe within squad) would support cooperative work/play.
- Some sort of payout for anyone contributing to the refueling effort. As I won't be mining I'd be glad to have some of my UC payouts to go to the miners, thus enabling all contributing to be rewarded for their efforts.
- Ability to see who has what ships parked within the FC and the ability to inspect them. Also a visitor log would be interesting, showing who had docked and bought, sold, contributed to the FC.
- Some sort of "membership" with the FC, which gives you and the owner some sort of benefit out of working together mid-/long-term
Thing is, it can't hurt them to at least experiment with it. If it's obviously broken, that would show up in the beta. If not, then it's reasonably safe to try and implement it when carriers go live.
I'm loving the fact that the DSSA project now exists. It's one of the strengths of the exploration community-- We'll take what we have to work with, and make the most of it. Since I'm planning to buy and outfit a carrier for this purpose, I'm still going to keep an open mind about how things might change during the beta. But I'm also left with a burning question-- Can I put a huge spoiler on the back of the carrier?!? I need to see those livery options!
I think it's mostly guessing - at least, I certainly haven't seen any official source confirming those numbers, just the video. We should know by Tuesday.Regarding fuel for the FC. Watching the video again I noticed that it displays the current fuel as 500/1000t and the current maximum range as 500LY. But it doesn't say anywhere how much fuel is needed to jump 500LY or how many jumps of 500LY could be made with 500t of fuel. It could be any number between 1t and 500t.
Is there some other info I'm missing that actually gives details of the fuel usage and range... or is everyone else just guessing too?
It would make sense though. You can store two full jumps in the tank, and if you can store tritium in the cargo hold (unconfirmed), then at most 50 jumps' worth of fuel. (No idea how much the various modules will take up, and how much of that 25k hold will be available.) Then there are 8 large pads for players to dock at, so if you can get 8 players to help you carry fuel, that's 10-11 extra jumps. In other words, a carrier stocked up with as much fuel as can be could even do 32,000 ly without needing to refuel.
Whether that will be practical... we'll see. I'm still concerned that the jump-based wear & tear costs will be high enough to discourage people from bringing their carriers out of the bubble. (At least, I don't see any point to introducing a credit cost to jumping other than to punish explorers.) But again, we'll see this in a couple of days, when the beta starts.
These sound like a massive waste of time and energy.
Well, if you look at it this way...
You can store your ships on the FC. So basically you can fly an unlimited amount of fully loaded T9s to your FC and whenever you're running out of fuel you could activate one of these and transfer the cargo to the FC, thus having an unlimited range.
I don't think you can store your own ships with cargo onboard.
Has this been changed? I could have sworn that this was possible.
That has always been the case for storing ships at stations. I regularly get caught out when I've forgotten to get rid of any limpets I have on board.
No. You changed my statement of
i personally don't see the need for Universal Cartographics service on a Carrier.
to a question
i personally don't see the need for Universal Cartographics service on a Carrier?
and then continue on to "i amswered my own question" that i did not ask. i know my own mind. i do not object to a Cartographics service on a Carrier, but it is not important for me.
You can store ships with cargo, but the cargo stays with you. If you're trying to switch to a ship that couldn't hold the cargo, then the game won't let you.
For example, you bring in 200T of bio-waste with your Python, and you wish to switch to your Type-9 with 512T cargo space. The game lets you, and the 200T of bio-waste is now in your Type-9.
There's no cargo storage currently, that functionality will be new to fleet carriers.
For example, you bring in 200T of bio-waste with your Python, and you wish to switch to your Type-9 with 512T cargo space. The game lets you, and the 200T of bio-waste is now in your Type-9.
There's no cargo storage currently, that functionality will be new to fleet carriers.
Deleted member 38366
D
So far, Carrier Exploration looks like "Engine Failure during TakeOff" = Abort criteria met.
Let's see how long it takes until they absorb all the feedback and then maybe change their mind.
Let's see how long it takes until they absorb all the feedback and then maybe change their mind.
Last edited by a moderator: