Now a baby carrier is the way to go old bean, what what
Maximum storage of two ships onboard and you have to pay twelve trillion for every ten ly jump.
Death to all Fleet Carriers, what what
- Thread starter thelion
- Start date
Now a baby carrier is the way to go old bean, what what
Maximum storage of two ships onboard and you have to pay twelve trillion for every ten ly jump.
Even a temporary permit lock , "NO FC DURING CG DUE TO OVERWHELMING TRAFFIC" would make sense lorewise and IRL. I like itSuggested it before...
Permit lock CG systems (a 50Ly radius would be nice!) and all engineer systems... Instant removal of the 'resident' FC's
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
I imagine for every person that pleases, it upsets another. I've not been paying attention but I think the latest CG is collecting rares. We all know there is a limit on how many you can buy at a time. I think it used to be the case that even if I waited an hour, if I turned up to the station wanting to buy more but I already had some in my hold, it would not sell me more. So having a carrier is ideal. Backwards, forwards, backwards, forwards, until you have had enough. Move your carrier over to the buying station, transport as many as you can in one go.
You might see that as having an advantage, well, people paid for that advantage, if you're going to remove advantages like that from the game, then stick us all in a Sidewinder and we can never get out.
Over populated systems, over populated with FC's, aren't really a problem for being there, it's not like you cant fly around the system or you have to constantly slam on the brakes or swerve to avoid them, the problem is how they are represented on the system map. You can filter them out of your nav panel, so. it is only the system map. Clean that up and you could be in a system with 20 or more in and you'd never know.
You're welcome to visit my fc. No cheese there. Only surströmming. (Google it.
It had better not be a meaty item that also smells of cheese?!
you can have my FC for a pair of Small Seismic Charges.
Full disclosure, as an EvE Bittervet I support the destruction of everything in a game...
...but...
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when a dedicated squad of gankers (which totally do not exist, of course) take it upon themselves to systematically disassemble DSSA because why not?
I mean...it would make for EPIC salt, but really, you want to do that?
You want to take the idiocy of the Gnosis - the total lack of forethought to protect Salome with plot armor - and apply that to an already poorly designed feature?
(Grabs sunshades and popcorn)
Dude.
+1
Imma watch in my Adder.
Less cockpit view helps manage the salt intake.
...but...
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when a dedicated squad of gankers (which totally do not exist, of course) take it upon themselves to systematically disassemble DSSA because why not?
I mean...it would make for EPIC salt, but really, you want to do that?
You want to take the idiocy of the Gnosis - the total lack of forethought to protect Salome with plot armor - and apply that to an already poorly designed feature?
(Grabs sunshades and popcorn)
Dude.
+1
Imma watch in my Adder.
Less cockpit view helps manage the salt intake.
The DSSA is the only beauty to come out of fleet carriers, the rest are a scourge on the galaxy
Surströmming does not smell of cheese, it reeks of death.
Which is precisely why it would be targeted for ganking.
Keep in mind, I fully endorse ganking - if FDev didn't want it, they'd have coded to deal with it. At the end of the day, the merits of ganking - of any PvP, really - boil down to what the developers had in mind, reflected in how the game is built. If Elite were about ship balance and fair combat, it would be so.
It isn't.
Still, destructible carriers seem a bit of a waste - not just for salt. The real problem (in my mind) is that because they aren't squadron assets, most carrier destructions would be little more than ganking - even if the carrier owner in question is themselves PvP oriented - because no mechanic for carrier warfare exists, just like no real mechanic for squadron warfare exists. There's the BGS...but that's just moving nametags around in stations. There aren't any (significant) tangible benefits to cooperative PvP....which is a real shame.
Squadron carriers would have made a fine stepping stone in that direction. Oh well.
carrier combat could exist within the current gameplay if it was initiated and fought thru the npcs and bgs with human players able to help or defend it thru a combat zone mechanic with the carrier unable to jump during the event.
the carrier itself could then suffer higher upkeep on losing for that week (and/or temporary service failures) if it's side lost or get a temporary reduction in upkeep (and or reduction of cost of services to players (with the owner still getting transactions at the full price as set prior to the CZ beginning) if it's side won.
This would be how i'd design such a mechanic around fleet carriers given their persistent cross-mode nature.
edit: carriers that lose such an event would be forced to emergency jump to an adjacent system (this would use no fuel).
the carrier itself could then suffer higher upkeep on losing for that week (and/or temporary service failures) if it's side lost or get a temporary reduction in upkeep (and or reduction of cost of services to players (with the owner still getting transactions at the full price as set prior to the CZ beginning) if it's side won.
This would be how i'd design such a mechanic around fleet carriers given their persistent cross-mode nature.
edit: carriers that lose such an event would be forced to emergency jump to an adjacent system (this would use no fuel).
Last edited:
Is anyone considering that if FC's were made attackable, then surely they would also be given offensive abilities to defend themselves? That may or may not be great in the existing game but it's something we have to consider.
i'd imagine they would have a similar role as cap ships in CZ's do. but to a much lesser extent and with no de-instancing ability. Your damage to certain submodules would be considered temporary disabling...rather than destruction of anything.
They already did. Did you see the thread complaining about engineered shield boosters?
So I read this whole thread. I think I am more confused at the end then I was at the start.
(1) People want to blow up carriers for loot?
(2) People hate the cost of having carriers?
(3) People love going into the black with carriers?
(4) People hate FC because of CG goal and carriers are in system not theirs so they have to fly further to bring items in..But if their carrier was in system it would be OK?
(5)People don't like carriers in system because they cause clutter to load in system?
Ya know perhaps somebody OTHER THEN what what or whomever can please address..what are we whinging about?
(1) People want to blow up carriers for loot?
(2) People hate the cost of having carriers?
(3) People love going into the black with carriers?
(4) People hate FC because of CG goal and carriers are in system not theirs so they have to fly further to bring items in..But if their carrier was in system it would be OK?
(5)People don't like carriers in system because they cause clutter to load in system?
Ya know perhaps somebody OTHER THEN what what or whomever can please address..what are we whinging about?
This is a can of pandoras boxes waiting, no.... asking, to be opened.
The immersive gameplay from this alone could make Elite truly epic.
Let the salt flow. Salt is good. They love their carriers getting destroyed. Because that gives incentive to hire security forces.
The immersive gameplay from this alone could make Elite truly epic.
Let the salt flow. Salt is good. They love their carriers getting destroyed. Because that gives incentive to hire security forces.