OK, lets explore it step by step.
1st Question - You say 'auto-undock'? That is one half of of it but implies my ship is left in free space, if not where will it be moved to?
Abducted by Fleet Carrier
- Thread starter hellomike
- Start date
OK, lets explore it step by step.
1st Question - You say 'auto-undock'? That is one half of of it but implies my ship is left in free space, if not where will it be moved to?
Not to mention the fact that removing any unintended consequences from our actions would probably not be a great decision, design-wise.
Why fight a simple request for better functionality? Jumping takes 15 minutes. Even sooner before the ship locks down. I'm talking about the right side ship panel for each commander having an auto-undock option. The Carrier Admin would benefit from seeing a traffic report as well as information on any commanders being docked. Considering you can set the docking access to none, I presume you can technically kick out ships by switching to this anyway. But it would still be nice to know if there are ships to consider.
It would just spawn back in the low wake area of the Carrier. Much like how you respawn outside a station when there's a server error upon docking, sometimes.
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
From my personal Carrier owner perspective:
It is not my responsibility to take care of other CMDRs who parked on my FC. It is their responsibility.
I play in solo to escape other people. I don't want some burden associated with other players attached to my solo game. Not when it is their responsibility.
Even if they have the function to auto un-dock but don't use it (another simple mistake) and I move my carrier, I'm going to get some person telling me I should have checked my admin board to see who I was carrying before I moved, despite the fact that it is their responsibility.
If you must, I'm not bothered, however, it doesn't really cover the issue that was worrying you previously about any engineered modules they have stored on my FC. Also, as stated above, someone will make the 'simple mistake' of not using it allowing all blame to be shifted to the Carrier owner.
To you, perhaps, to me, it would just be more stuff I wouldn't read. I also suggest it is quite optimistic. If your carrier is parked with 30 -100 others in a populated system, I'm not sure you're going to have much to read. If you're out in the black, 40,000ly from Sol, the chances are, once in 6 months, you might have something to read.
If you feel the need to consider them, I do not. I play this for myself, not to babysit others.
There are a coupe of others things. No doubt this simple functionality addition 'shouldn't be that hard to do', along with the other 5,000 things that people think are simple and 'not that hard to do'. I would rather FD concentrated on the upcoming DLC than flap around with this minor stuff.
The problem this fixes seems to be incredibly rare, to the point that as far as I'm aware, it has only happened a couple of times. Obviously not all players are on this forum. Why get FD to fix this 'problem' when other problems, that impact more people, are screaming out for attention?
I tell you what I think might solve this, if you have docked on to someone else's carrier and you go to log out, on the log out screen it says something like,
'Warning! You are docked on a Fleet Carrier that is owned by another Commander. This Carrier could move before you return to the game, do you wish to continue to log out?'
Clearly I don't want to see that screen when I'm docked on my own carrier.
It should be as simple as a toggle, really. When docking at a FC you would choose to either remain on it or have your unmanned ship leave the FC if it was going to jump. I've purposedly used the unmaned term here because a similar situation already exists when you are on land with a SRV and you're able to call your ship which will launch, navigate and land automatically for your convenience. Currently, the expectation for both situations are unreasonable:
1. Expecting the FC CMDR to delay or cancel a jump because an unknown ship is docked.
2. Providing docking as a FC public service, but totally unsafe if you're not in the game for 15 minutes since you could end up in a system 500 ly away... per 15 minutes.
1. Expecting the FC CMDR to delay or cancel a jump because an unknown ship is docked.
2. Providing docking as a FC public service, but totally unsafe if you're not in the game for 15 minutes since you could end up in a system 500 ly away... per 15 minutes.
Oh god,i hope nobody was/is on my carrier!?
Where its parked you're not jumping anywhere and it been there for a while,can i tell if i have cmdr's onboard?
Where its parked you're not jumping anywhere and it been there for a while,can i tell if i have cmdr's onboard?
For what it's worth I agree with the proposal. I gave up with this question a while back though. There's a strong opposition to it. Expect to be grilled on the exact implementation of how it'll work. Including where the button should go (people hate this part
).The idea itself isn't enough. You must prove it'll work for everyone (what's the default setting? Is it realistic? Where do you get dropped? Explain this complicated theory step by step to me while I pretend to be interested but actually just want you to say something I can retort against), ensure there are no bugs (you'll get told it'll go wrong at some point and what then?) and demonstrate that it'll not upset anyone (which, apparently, it will, despite being entirely optional. Someone will be upset by the choice because they'll forget to turn it off and get left behind because the onus on explicit control of a function is suddenly a difficult task).
Or, just get told not to dock. That's the go-to objection.
Good luck 07
Last edited:
again, who makes you the final arbiter on failure. No you simply want to complain that a function in the game doesn't meet your expectations of ease.
It is a juvenile sense of entitlement. I want it easy, I want FC owners to cater to my poor decisions, they need to kick us off if they leave, yada yada yada. Whining Whinging. Nothing more
I will ask you again, do you want FDev or Braben to play the game for you too?
I didn't speak of engineered modules stored on a Fleet Carrier, but spoke specifically of being stuck on a Carrier in an Engineered ship, forced if incapable of returning to the bubble to self destruct and forfeit your ship for a default sidewinder in order to prevent the loop of respawning on the Carrier.
Why can't this simple point be understood here? In my opinion it is a developer oversight and general flaw to the design.
OK. Next step.
Questions 2 -
What happened to the module I ordered from stock while on the FC? Where is it now? I expected to log in and fit it and now youve moved me and it somewhere? This is terrible game design!
As soon as I logged back in and found myself in FC wake space a ganker wing was waiting for me who had also set auto undock to get into the same space and then called a wing in. and they killed me. What are you going to do to fix this? This is terrible game design!
I ordered my combat ship to that FC, do I now have to to pay to get it redelivered somewhere? This is terrible game design!
I dont have enough jump range now to get anywhere, I came in my explo ship which is now on the FC and none of the stations in range have a shipyard, thats why I docked at the FC. What are you going to do about this? Im going to start a thread 'Stranded by Fleet Carrier'. This is terrible game design!
I hadnt finished swopping my modules around, some are still on the FC. What are you going to do about this? This is terrible game design!
Whatever dude. If a better game design offends you then by all means continue to sniff up Frontier's laughing gas. And, yes, I'm now playing into the narrative of being a juvenile just for you.
What part of this not being a problem for me don't you get? I'm thinking of other players who are prone to making the mistake either by lack of experience or general circumstance.
You sound more entitled than anybody here since you think you're entitled to have a more challenging game through flawed game design. Play some of those broken retro games if you like design flaws. I hear the jump mechanics on some old platformers were a real hoot.
Last edited:
OK, @Ydiss, fair enough, mate. I'll be serious for a while. I really don't seriously, in spite of my incessant mockery which is just the kind of lovable, adorable fellow that I am, have anything against an "undock automatically on jump" feature being implemented as long as it defaults to "off" so I don't have to tediously uncheck it every time I land on a ship I intend to stay with. I'd never interact with that option since I know better than to go to sleep on random passing trains, so it wouldn't affect me at all if implemented that way.
Only reason I mock it, apart from the aforementioned lovable nature of myself, is that I find it hilarious that anybody would consider such an option necessary in the first place but hey, to each their own.
Perhaps we should have a function to automatically disable the boost function if pointed at something that we might hit as well? An automatic feature to steer us away from exclusion zones? Auto drop from SC no matter how fast we're going, no damage as a consequence? Infinite fuel so we can't run out when we deliberately ignore every single scoopable star on our way because "jumping until your tank is almost dry is so much faster"? (spoiler: It isn't)
Only reason I mock it, apart from the aforementioned lovable nature of myself, is that I find it hilarious that anybody would consider such an option necessary in the first place but hey, to each their own.
Perhaps we should have a function to automatically disable the boost function if pointed at something that we might hit as well? An automatic feature to steer us away from exclusion zones? Auto drop from SC no matter how fast we're going, no damage as a consequence? Infinite fuel so we can't run out when we deliberately ignore every single scoopable star on our way because "jumping until your tank is almost dry is so much faster"? (spoiler: It isn't)
In mine it is a simple oversight of the pilot and a flaw in their planning.
We have different opinions.
So would addressing the issue be a problem? Would that in any way harm the game to remove the necessity to default to a sidewinder under exceptional circumstances? That's why I don't agree with the challenge to an otherwise simple opinion.
If we must steer FD’s time and effort away to solve an issue that seems to be highly unlikely to happen and 99% avoidable, sure, work away till your nose bleeds. I’m passed caring tbh.
Sorry, but if Fdev actually were investing time and effort into the core game as opposed to constantly releasing cosmetics for a fee, then perhaps something as simple as this could have been considered inside of the 2 years it took them to release Fleet Carriers.
I shouldn't care so much myself when this issue doesn't affect me personally. I just can't get behind oversights like these. Nobody should be forced to lose a ship and her modules for the reasons touched upon on this topic.
Well fear not because I suspect only 0.01% of the player base ever will.
![[VR] Orodruin](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/237/237188.jpg?1614840532){kind=avatar}
You really want to have to make a choice each time you dock on a carrier? I don’t. Also, if it is a toggled setting then some people will either forget to set it or fail to remember its existence.
The fundamental issue here remains that your supposed solution - while a priori being a QoL feature - fails to solve the particular problem you want it to solve.
Can I also please have a flight assist computer that kills Thargoid interceptors and destroys everything in PvP please? It is just that I really don’t want to lose my ship.
I just wanted to say Cheers for the Frazetta painting as your avatar! He has such awesome work.