An option to FC upkeep

[space voyager]

I understand the FD's issue about "eternal fleet carriers". I strongly believe that it is a real issue that needs to be resolved in one way or another. It is my opinion though that upkeep is one of the least desirable ways from a point of player's view.

We (as a community+developer) need to find another way.

My own suggestion is quite simple; if the carrier is not used by any player for a certain time (two weeks, a month?), FC is simply deleted. All ships and all modules are transferred to nearest station.

To not punish an owner that might have had RL issues to deal with and was not able to play; when he comes back he can "revive" the FC. Better said, call upon the FC, which "jumps into" his system after those 15 minutes.

It is a game and gameplay is more important than "believability".

Any other suggestion how to remove upkeep yet have a way to remove inactive FCs?

 

[dreampage]

I agree with this suggestion. If a player can't play for some reason, not only he will lose his Carrier but also all his money before that (at least the amount he deposited on the Carrier). I strongly believe such pressure or forward planning should not be forced onto players. "Wait, honey, we can't go to holiday until I grind some more to deposit enough money so I don't lose my Carrier by the time we get back."

If the reason for making Carriers temporary is the projected lack of server capacity, then make it so that inactive Carriers are simply deactivated and removed from the game until their owners come and reactivate them - even for a fee. Also, the constant need to generate a given amount of credits every week restricts players to some activities. What if someone wants to travel the galaxy for months, or even years, while they would like to leave their Carrier behind for their friends, squadron, or just anyone? Why is it that after spending a fortune on a Carrier, the player gets into this never ending spiral of constant revenue generation, when they can't take a break? Even if the upkeep is "manageable", there will be instances when someone can't generate such money. Or they don't have enough money deposited and something happens to them. You have an accident and after surviving a long rehabilitation, you come back to your favourite game only to see your Carrier, for which you have worked so hard to buy, lost permanently. I believe no game should pose such a threat to anyone.

I believe unlocked or purchased content should be available without a time limit, and if it means a burden for the servers, merely deactivated until better times.

 

[WINGBACON]

Or? How does 'Temporarily' decommission the FC sound until you pay the full upkeep debt?

 

[posthy]

Temporary decommission lore-wise is called dry-dock. The carrier gets towed into one, and moth-balled until re-activated, effectively removed from the game world . The towing fee can be added to the debt and reactivation cost, so distance may still matter where you leave your FC when leaving the game, but at least you don't loose your stuff.

 

[space voyager]

Or? How does 'Temporarily' decommission the FC sound until you pay the full upkeep debt?

There can be no upkeep debt if there is no upkeep. Let's try to find a way in THAT direction.

 

[avow555]

Fdevs insistence on grind just hit a peak with carriers.
You have to grind/mine for initial purchase and probably continue for Tritium.
All other ships only require a bit of wear and tear from use so why change for carriers.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

How about we just turn the thing off and have it appear as a signal source for the owner and noone else until they reactivate it.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Fdevs insistence on grind just hit a peak with carriers.
You have to grind/mine for initial purchase and probably continue for Tritium.
All other ships only require a bit of wear and tear from use so why change for carriers.

The other ships can't earn you money while you're logged off, either, whereas if you park a carrier with UC somewhere out in the black, people will eventually sell data to it, especially if you pick a good location. With no upkeep to offset that, you could go away for a year and come back several billion richer, which makes mining look a bit weak as an earning method. (And you still could, but it would require a bit more thought about placement)

If you can allow anyone else to dock at your carrier, it can't just disappear when you log off to prevent offline income.

A variant carrier that was purely personal - you could not under any circumstances allow anyone else to dock at it, they'd only even see it if they followed you to it in the same instance, and had services limited to empty shipyard and outfitting, restock, repair and refuel ... that could be zero-upkeep (and probably quite a bit cheaper to purchase as well) ... but if Frontier had come out with that instead, the complaints would all be "What, I can't even dock at a friend's carrier? Did Frontier learn nothing from SRVs and Multicrew?"

 

[Straker]

How about we just turn the thing off and have it appear as a signal source for the owner and noone else until they reactivate it.

I think this is the simplest positive solution. I would add that after a certain small but reasonable amount of time (perhaps two server ticks?) the carrier would be automatically de-spawned and remain non-persistent, thereby offering no gameplay value (earning credits or otherwise) to the owner or other players. Therefore we turn the whole negative punishment gameplay of needing to log-in each week or suffering the consequences to that of if you don't log in then you don't get any benefit.

We really need to turn this current state of affairs around from a negative to a positive thing and I fully support the constructive discussion in this thread.

 

[nrage]

What if the carrier is being used by a squadron? If the owner is unexpectedly away, the carrier is removed and the squadron is left high and dry.

As an absentee squadron leader who might well own a carrier, this is actually likely to happen to me.

At least with Upkeep as the mechanism, if other players could contribute towards carrier Upkeep, as an optional donation directly into the carrier bank, then a squadron could keep a carrier running without the owner.

The actual problem, IMO, is that on decommissioning we lose such a high percentage of the carrier value. If this loss was smaller, say 5%, then it wouldn't be all that bad.

You still wouldn't want it to happen, so it would still be a disincentive to let it happen.

But, if it did, it would be "as if' you had to pay a small fee to get the carrier back out of dry dock.

Plus, if you decided you didn't want a carrier any more, you can just not re-buy it.

So it's actually the most flexible option too.

How about we just turn the thing off and have it appear as a signal source for the owner and noone else until they reactivate it.

I like the signal source idea too.

 

[Straker]

What if the carrier is being used by a squadron? If the owner is unexpectedly away, the carrier is removed and the squadron is left high and dry.

It's a good point but I don't see this as a huge issue because I guess that will happen in any scenario. I imagine the player would have to spawn in their ship in the middle of space where the carrier was - and if that happens to be on the other side of the galaxy then that's the risk they take (not to sound like I'm trying to be punitive). In any case it would be a problem worth discussing further.

 

[nrage]

It's a good point but I don't see this as a huge issue because I guess that will happen in any scenario. I imagine the player would have to spawn in their ship in the middle of space where the carrier was - and if that happens to be on the other side of the galaxy then that's the risk they take (not to sound like I'm trying to be punitive). In any case it would be a problem worth discussing further.

Sure, we can handle if this happens. Might be kinda tough if you're flying a mining ship and 25,000 ly from the bubble when it does, but hey.

My point is that given this issue, given how carriers are going to be something more than one player might rely on, they can have a negative impact on fun for a wider group. As such, and if we had only a 5% loss on decommissioning and a way for players to donate to the carrier upkeep, then I would prefer upkeep as it's a more flexible way to deal with the underlying issue of having too many dead FCs littering the galaxy.

 

[Straker]

My point is that given this issue, given how carriers are going to be something more than one player might rely on, they can have a negative impact on fun for a wider group. As such, and if we had only a 5% loss on decommissioning and a way for players to donate to the carrier upkeep, then I would prefer upkeep as it's a more flexible way to deal with the underlying issue of having too many dead FCs littering the galaxy.

I can see your point of view and I can see its validity. In my view I would say the underlying issue is not having too many dead FCs littering the galaxy (assuming they were de-spawned to be non-persistent), I would say the underlying issue is attempting to get people to log-in using negative or punitive punishment rather than encouraging people through a positive incentive. I think negative reinforcement has no place in a game where people come together to have fun together. Let's keep it positive! Still, I see your point.

 

[nrage]

I can see your point of view and I can see its validity. In my view I would say the underlying issue is not having too many dead FCs littering the galaxy (assuming they were de-spawned to be non-persistent), I would say the underlying issue is attempting to get people to log-in using negative or punitive punishment rather than encouraging people through a positive incentive. I think negative reinforcement has no place in a game where people come together to have fun together. Let's keep it positive! Still, I see your point.

The underlying problem, for frontier, are having dead FCs cluttering the galaxy. This is why they added upkeep.

Its a solution to a problem.

I felt the same way, at first, about Upkeep being punitive. So, I do understand your position too.

I have a lifetime expansion pass so I'm going to take breaks from the game and I dont want to be forced to play.

This is fine, when my inactivity doesn't really impact anyone else. But carriers are persistent, so do have an impact on others.

Given that, I don't mind losing a few credits if I go inactive, or choose to sell it. 5% seems reasonable. Its the massive loss in credits that currently exists which is really putting me off buying one.

 

[space voyager]

The underlying problem, for frontier, are having dead FCs cluttering the galaxy. This is why they added upkeep.

Its a solution to a problem.

I felt the same way, at first, about Upkeep being punitive. So, I do understand your position too.

I have a lifetime expansion pass so I'm going to take breaks from the game and I dont want to be forced to play.

This is fine, when my inactivity doesn't really impact anyone else. But carriers are persistent, so do have an impact on others.

Given that, I don't mind losing a few credits if I go inactive, or choose to sell it. 5% seems reasonable. Its the massive loss in credits that currently exists which is really putting me off buying one.

Agreed.

I've been playing this game for almost four years now. I'm a Kickstarter backer but it took me two years to buy a comp to even run the game - after that I've been playing it pretty consistently. So, four years. Longer than any game I've ever played. Sooner or later (probably sooner) I'm going to take a break and I REALLY don't want to be punished for it. I know I can just opt not to buy a fleet carrier but isn't this the wrong solution to the problem? Not really a solution at all IMO, just avoiding the problem by missing new gameplay.

How about we just turn the thing off and have it appear as a signal source for the owner and noone else until they reactivate it.

I'm for it.

 

[space voyager]

Any other ideas? Not that the thread doesn't already contain viable alternatives to upkeep but still... If you have an idea, share. Perhaps.FD finds yours to be acceptable.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

Here are some ideas. Some are mine and others I've read.

1 shut it down and put it out it as a signal source for the owner

2 use the frigates that were scrapped as personal FC'S with no upkeep and the FCs we have now for squadron's

3 have a 2 week long timer when the owner logs out and after that timer is up the FC just respawns

4 make a beacon for the market to appear on the galaxy map and have upkeep/decom only apply to the market itself and not the whole carrier.

5 upkeep drains tritium instead of credits and when it reaches 0 the fc shuts down and is unable to move or perform any actions

6 refund the carrier 100% of your money

7 make the carrier rebuy 5% of its total cost like every other ship in the game.

8 make them not persistent (noone asked for them to be anyway)

9 make the FC paid DLC and use the money to upgrade the servers so we dont have this problem

10 make a permit locked system that the players cant access and send all of the repoed FCs there.

11 make FCs always appear in instances similar to faction installations only with information displayed when scanned from SC.

12 keep upkeep as is but remove decommissioning

13 remove both upkeep / decommissioning and increase the total cost of a fully upgraded FC to 25 billion to align with every other ship in the game (it costs about 5 times the initial buying price to fully A rate any normal ship)

14 do nothing. There are loads of in game assets that just sit there and arent used for anything so what's the difference if we have a few FC's lying around. (Faction instalations, megaships, basically everything on planets, cqc, thargoids, the elite storyline, etc, etc)

15 just drop the whole thing alltogether because obviously 2 years of working on this was wasted because of stupid management decisions when all you had to do was make a simple movable base where we can store our ships modules and maybee repair/restock/refuel.