Time? If you're playing the game, you clearly have some time to spare... Upkeep is easily manageable, and gives you something to spend credits on. Neither of those is a disadvantage to me.
Fleet carriers are a epic fail in one word
- Thread starter Vicktore Beskor
- Start date
Time? If you're playing the game, you clearly have some time to spare... Upkeep is easily manageable, and gives you something to spend credits on. Neither of those is a disadvantage to me.
Thankfully I got to this thread after the mods had moderated the language!
Not sure the Carriers are fails, but they could have been a lot more. Especially, they could have been more nuanced.
A lot of the discussions of the Carriers came down rather polarised: The Carriers should have upkeep/the Carriers should not have upkeep. The Carriers should be persistent/the Carriers should not be persistent. The Carriers should be strategic game pieces/all my Carrier should do is carrier my fleet.
FD again gave us a bagful of simple mechanics, hopeful perhaps that the players will add the rest. I don't think that really works since ED is not a sandbox game (it's an Open World game if you wonder). The Carriers are the first persistent assets we can have in the game, so maybe a first step towards sandbox features (I don't count the BGS as it will revert to a default state if players stop messing with it). Yet they don't interact with the game itself, only potentially with other player assets. This simplicity is what is polarising the discussing, because there is no detail to the mechanics:
S
Not sure the Carriers are fails, but they could have been a lot more. Especially, they could have been more nuanced.
A lot of the discussions of the Carriers came down rather polarised: The Carriers should have upkeep/the Carriers should not have upkeep. The Carriers should be persistent/the Carriers should not be persistent. The Carriers should be strategic game pieces/all my Carrier should do is carrier my fleet.
FD again gave us a bagful of simple mechanics, hopeful perhaps that the players will add the rest. I don't think that really works since ED is not a sandbox game (it's an Open World game if you wonder). The Carriers are the first persistent assets we can have in the game, so maybe a first step towards sandbox features (I don't count the BGS as it will revert to a default state if players stop messing with it). Yet they don't interact with the game itself, only potentially with other player assets. This simplicity is what is polarising the discussing, because there is no detail to the mechanics:
- Upkeep: Could have been much more. Upkeep could vary with not only with carrier configuration, but also with system-specific details such as varying fees based on economy type/size, number of carriers in a system in relation to number of carriers tolerated by the locals. And upkeep could be partly replaced with commodity upkeep, splitting the needs of the Carrier into categories that the owner could fulfill by supplying these from local markets. The only way to maintain upkeep away from populated space could be made to be the commodity upkeep, as there would be no ports nearby to supply the ship: The Carrier would need to haul its own supplies, or gather them from where it was. That would add some base maintenance mechanics for those who like that type of game play. And it would make exploring with Carriers more interesting.
- Decommission: I'd assume we get a pay-back on decommission? That should help at least not making it too hard a reach to buy a new one if need be. Decommission should also vary with where the carrier is. Deep in the black, who is doing the decommissioning? Some systems might seize the Carriers for themselves. We should be able to find and scavenge from derelict Carriers.
- Jumping: The range is probably fine, but they can jump way too frequently. Yet is can be a drag to wait for the cool-down if far travel is needed. How about having a "travel configuration" where services are off-line (except docking/undocking) but the Carrier can jump every 5-15 minutes or so. If services are needed, the Carrier could be changed to "base configuration" which would take an hour or two.
- Persistency: That's one of the coolest features of the Carriers. Are there message boards/log books? Would be cool for players to be able to leave messages to each other.
- Invulnerability: That's a mistake, yet nobody wants their persistent asset blown to bits while they are sleeping. How about damage models similar to megaships? When a certain amount of turrets have been damaged, the Carrier would auto-jump randomly to a point no further than half it's fuel range away. That way they can be driven away. Repairs could be sorted over time via upkeep, or expedited at a cost.
- Game world interaction: A players-only asset seems out of place in a "living, breathing game world". Keeping mechanics in place for balancing their impact on the BGS (local market reaction levels, with boycotts and local militia driving them away as the extremes) would help. But players could generate semi-passive income by setting commodity market price levels as indirect sliders determining the interaction with local economies (buy to/sell from).
S
The frustrating thing is that no matter who you are or what kind of game you like, there's a version of this argument to be had with Elite. You want a well developed storyline, or a reactive game world, or tight play mechanics? Well too bad! It's an MMO. Can't have that kind of stuff in MMOs. If you don't like MMOs, you need to Go Play Something Else. What's that, you do like MMOs? Well I hope you're not expecting a player driven economy, consequential player interactions, robust coop play, or PvP! That kind of stuff would hurt the solo play experience, which is what the real game is anyway. If MMOs are your thing, you need to Go Play Something Else. Etc.
Sim Elements, MMO elements, and Sci-Fi adventure game elements are the rhetorical Paper, Scissor, and Rock which are forever used opportunistically to dismiss any criticism coming from any perspective. It's unreasonable to ask for any aspect of the game to be good because hey for the purposes of this one argument just right now, we're gonna say that Elite is Paper, so all you Rock players are thinking about the whole thing wrong and need to go away.
I dunno. Having a large space ship in space, you'd think they would let you actually fly the thing.
Just a mobile storage unit used to keep end game players occupied playing the game until they can sell their next update.
Just a mobile storage unit used to keep end game players occupied playing the game until they can sell their next update.
I have to be honest, I was quite gutted when I saw what FCs would be all about.
After a couple naps though (yes I'm that old) I figured it is what some people stated, they're just not for me and that's fine.
Are they a fail because I never want one the way they are? Definitely not imho, every game has elements that aren't exactly my cup of tea and that's okay too.
For those who invested the many billions and enjoy their personal FC, congrats, I might even visit yours someday.
After a couple naps though (yes I'm that old) I figured it is what some people stated, they're just not for me and that's fine.
Are they a fail because I never want one the way they are? Definitely not imho, every game has elements that aren't exactly my cup of tea and that's okay too.
For those who invested the many billions and enjoy their personal FC, congrats, I might even visit yours someday.
Nah. I am very well aware of what you stated. In contrast, you seem to say that nothing random, accident or anything, which can result in not going online for a longer period of time, could ever happen to somebody buying a fleet carrier.
If that is true, i should get me one. Seems to be better than any insurance.
True, but I think Agony was also making this point ironically by repurposing the same argument that had already been used in the opposite direction.
There's something in it though. Gamers are usually quite clever people, able to analyse complex systems and optimise them with quick reactions. Why doesn't this always extend to choosing a good game to play?
Last edited:
I've never said anything like that. Not even close. It would be nice if you would try to understand what I'm saying a little bit harder. It's hardly a discussion if you can only hear yourself.
I'm just saying that you can easily make sure that even if you'll be out of the game for a year, your FC will be fine. And even if you'll lose it, that's not really a tragedy.
I'm saying that unkeep is acceptable in my opinion and the fact that FC can be decomissioned is maybe not perfect thing to look for, but understandable if we don't want all that crap floating forever if nobody cares for it.
I'm just looking at FCs as not something I MUST have, because it's in the game, but I'm rather weighing pros and cons to decide if it's something for me. Unkeep is certainly on the minus side.
On talking and not reading: i could blame you of the same thing here. Nowhere did i ever state that the FC was a necessity for everybody, yet you word things as if i did. It's even funnier when you in the end even state that upkeep is on the minus side for you, too. Because that was mostly my point here: upkeep is completely negative. As you can pile in cash for such a long time, it does not serve its only purpose. Yet it does come with a number of disadvantages. Which I don't have to reiterate once again.
So that's really the core of what i was saying: the whole thing about upkeep is simply bad game design. I gave examples where it in old times made sense, i explained why ED would not need it, it would have other options available, it does nothing positive for the game, yet FD absolutely wanted to have it.
On what good FCs do for us players, i never went for that. For my personal playstyle, i see no benefit to them. They offer nothing to me which a base can't also provide. Which in my eyes just pushes things even more into one direction: nothing beneficial for me, but a mechanic which i have seen do terrible things in other games and thus for good reason was killed and burried, to now be resurrected by FD. That's a really rotten and smelly undead, which we didn't really need.
as a player who enjoys the time sink that is video games, i love my FC and my squad is useing the crap out of it. its awesome. sorry theres so many haters.
![[DOOK] Droogie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124078.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
This game isn't all open pvp, either. That's why we have modes, and have since the beginning.
But it could be made good game design. Upkeep mechanics are so pervasive over so many genres of games. Yet FD keeps making everything so simplistic and in-your-face mechanical.
SThwarptide
Banned
I think the initial hype and novelty will fizzle out when all but the devote will no longer use em due to the enormous cost overhead.
It's already crazy. Yesterday there were two in orbit around Dav's Hope (A5). One was a confirmed federal navy npc FC.
Today there are 5 The others I'm pretty sure are players, but there's room for doubt since the system has no orbital stations.
But i think Today removed that doubt when I took 4 jumps back to Okinura that has many orbital stations that sell ships.
Now I play on Ps4 in solo mode (I don't want to be bothered by kids living in the parents basement). I know that neither players nor I can interact with each other.
Up till now I didn't think it possible to see another players ships (but they just can't be targeted?)
If I recall, Okinura has 4 big orbital stations. Verified that none sell FCs. Yet in orbit around one planet there's the station and 5 FCs.
This raises questions for me.
1. Owner Names. Or Corp ship names
a) the 5 families? Sounds like a player owned ship to me. (The 5 families is a reference from the Godfather movies)
b) Spittle & Phlem.
c) Validating (a common Xbox bug).
2. Why 5 FCs around one planet in a system many with fuel stations? (does only one sell fuel?)
3. Why 5 in both systems? Why not 6 in one 4 or 2 etc?
4. Why put a FC (let alone 5) in a system with no stations and fluid acccess to fuel? Relying on big type 9s to bring it in to donate or sell the fuel seems pretty risky.
I think the initial Novelty will wear off when all but the most devote players will have em. They're such a huge burden and responsibility. I can't imagine owning one and taking the family on vacation. Like some women, FCs are high maintenance. The moment the funds run dry they both go poof!
Neither are on my "worth having it" list.
It's already crazy. Yesterday there were two in orbit around Dav's Hope (A5). One was a confirmed federal navy npc FC.
Today there are 5 The others I'm pretty sure are players, but there's room for doubt since the system has no orbital stations.
But i think Today removed that doubt when I took 4 jumps back to Okinura that has many orbital stations that sell ships.
Now I play on Ps4 in solo mode (I don't want to be bothered by kids living in the parents basement). I know that neither players nor I can interact with each other.
Up till now I didn't think it possible to see another players ships (but they just can't be targeted?)
If I recall, Okinura has 4 big orbital stations. Verified that none sell FCs. Yet in orbit around one planet there's the station and 5 FCs.
This raises questions for me.
1. Owner Names. Or Corp ship names
a) the 5 families? Sounds like a player owned ship to me. (The 5 families is a reference from the Godfather movies)
b) Spittle & Phlem.
c) Validating (a common Xbox bug).
2. Why 5 FCs around one planet in a system many with fuel stations? (does only one sell fuel?)
3. Why 5 in both systems? Why not 6 in one 4 or 2 etc?
4. Why put a FC (let alone 5) in a system with no stations and fluid acccess to fuel? Relying on big type 9s to bring it in to donate or sell the fuel seems pretty risky.
I think the initial Novelty will wear off when all but the most devote players will have em. They're such a huge burden and responsibility. I can't imagine owning one and taking the family on vacation. Like some women, FCs are high maintenance. The moment the funds run dry they both go poof!
Neither are on my "worth having it" list.
No, I do not word things as if you did. I've said:
It means that you've exaggerated, making it sound like that. You've put dramatic examples of how people might be forced out of the game for long periods of time by unforseen events and loose everything, being greeted by depressing messages that their posessions were lost when they finally return to game.
You've made those claims without putting it in perspective, which is that even if that's true, even if something like that might happen to someone (who chose to buy a carrier and knew what costs it entails), it would be rather isolated incident that anyone can easily protect himself from, because upkeep isn't that big of a deal, and even if it would happen to that unlucky someone - it's still not a tragedy, like loosing all your stuff and progress, which was the case in examples you gave.
Of course it is, but I'm not saying it's bad game design, just something I need to consider when I'm trying to decide if I want one.
Just like the price of the Cutter, or turning rate of Type-9.
That's a really terrible false equivalence.
Why do people keep forgetting this is game?