So why, outside of pure laziness, do Carrier guns target the owner of a carrier when the local cops find him doing illegal stuff?

AirshipCanon

AirshipCanon
That should never happen.
, if the owner of a Carrier is a pirate, the carrier should be their ultimate pirate ship, and if the local authority start a fight with Pirate Captain of a Pirate Carrier, the Carrier should rip the local authority a ing new one with those station-class guns, not do dumb . Hell, it should be a setting in the Carrier management that allows a Carrier to just fire on the Authority automatically [incurring bounties for the owner]

Now sure, if the owner of a carrier is a mad man and intentionally fires on their own carrier, sure, shoot him down.

But otherwise the owner of a Carrier should be protected by their carrier when the cops attack, not the other way around. A Carrier owner should also be exempt from the Carrier's No Fire Zone.
 

goemon

goemon
AirshipCanon said:
and if the local authority start a fight with Pirate Captain of a Pirate Carrier, the Carrier should rip the local authority a ing new one with those station-class guns, not do dumb .
Click to expand...
pretty sure many players would love that. indestructible asset racking up violent crimes to undermine a controlling faction without any player input (beside having the game running).

there are also more knowledgeable people who can explain, under which condition a FC fire upon its owner - it's not only for being wanted by the local authorities. iirc it needs the owner to shoot/hit the FC - which is dumb, i think (at no conditions a FC should fire on its owner methinks).
 

CMDR X

CMDR X
I agree. This is why I won't waste my time buying a carrier. It's just a different shaped outpost that you can move around and waste more time and credits on. You can't even travel on your bridge and it treats you like any other random commander.
I want mine to love me and shoot things that I tell it to. All from the comfort of my captains chair on the bridge, of course.
Another half baked, wasted opportunity for greatness, as always.
 

Kissamies

Kissamies
Well, I can't talk about doing illegal stuff in the carrier's space, but I've often been hostile to the local authority because of my actions in the conflict zones, but my carrier couldn't care less about it. It has even shot at the authorities a few times when they made the mistake of hitting it while trying to get me. I like to think that my carrier wants to help me, but the crew is bound by the strict union rules.
 

goemon

goemon
CMDR X said:
It's just a different shaped outpost
Click to expand...
an outpost can change ownership,a FC can't. you can flip an outpost to anarchy, at which point in its sphere of influence there are no crimes and fines (but the station will defend ships of the same faction). a FC has no sphere of influence - same as you don't own a parking spot, where you happen to park your bicycle (but the bicycle).
 

CMDR X

CMDR X
goemon said:
an outpost can change ownership,a FC can't. you can flip an outpost to anarchy, at which point in its sphere of influence there are no crimes and fines (but the station will defend ships of the same faction). a FC has no sphere of influence - same as you don't own a parking spot, where you happen to park your bicycle (but the bicycle).
Click to expand...

I still want it to shoot things. While I watch from my chair.
 

here_it_comes

here_it_comes
For the same reason burning station staff fine you whilst you are rescuing them. FD puts little to no effort in how these things are handled and never fixes them when the issue is revealed. I wasn't surprised in the slightest when day 1 of EDO Alpha brought a lot of complaints over C&P.

ED would honestly be a better game if FD just gave up on trying to implement C&P and tossed it all out. Their implementation of C&P both solves nothing and ruins immersion. Consistently.
 

Deleted member 38366

D
The whole "Carrier Security" concept IMHO is deeply flawed.

How it should be :
  • by default Carrier acts similar to CapShips and deploys 10 SLFs when on Station anywhere
  • Authority? Carrier owner only. The jurisdiction should be a small 10km bubble all around the Carrier.
  • Carrier owners should additionally be able to deploy upto 3 assigned Combat Ships owned by the Player and flown by our hired Crew NPCs to act as a QRA, providing additional cover (and alot more firepower depending on Outfitting/Engineering, the Deterrent the SLF Patrols alone cannot provide against engineered Hostiles)
  • System Authority if present should respect that as local Power Projection and
  • a) either stay clear of the Carrier instance entirely (Safe Haven)
  • b) join patrolling the Carrier only if pledged to the same Faction or Power when in such a jurisdiction

So if anyone would attack the Carrier or its owner within 10km of it - that guy is very likely toast, period.
And if you're in Deep Space, your own Carrier SLFs and Crew NPCs via assigned Ships from Storage will provide a solid Security Level even in Anarchy Space for the owner (or if set, also for Squadron Members or same Faction/Power or Friends).
Aggressiveness of NPCs set by Carrier owner as by WCS (Weapons Control State), going
  • WCS : Hold (no Security)
  • WCS: Tight (no Patrols but Carrier only fires back in self-defense or defending its owner)
  • WCS : Free (maximum security, all SLFs deployed, QRA deployed if assigned, aggressive scans on all Traffic, Docking Permission only granted after negative KWS Scan, Carrier owner [or assigned roles such as pledged Power or Squadron or Friends are exemt from all scans] are actively escorted to and from the Carrier in the Instance [treated as High Value Asset and VIPs they are] )

That's actual "Carrier Command", giving tactical choices depending on available assets, location and a sense of actual Control & associated Effects.
 

Vetinari

V
CMDR X said:
I want mine to love me and shoot things that I tell it to....
Another half baked, wasted opportunity for greatness, as always.
Click to expand...

[VR] here_it_comes said:
FD puts little to no effort in how these things are handled and never fixes them when the issue is revealed.
Click to expand...

Yeah that'd be awesome. Just imagine:

As already pointed out I could destroy BGS of another faction even while AFK and with zero risk to myself
I could allow public docking and then change it to attack everything and grief anybody trying to take off
I could fly around the FC in my own ship and keep an eye on ships and set it to destroy just as people are about to land meaning they have no chance to escape, especially useful in the black against explorers or if I set a high price for mined minerals and get the people with full mining loads wasting hours of their time just for lols

But yeah you're right, its coz of laziness and no thought that Frontier make FCs stick to local System laws and not at all for any other reason. And certainly not coz they thought about it more than some players did before making threads....again....about the same subject in an MMO and not a Single Player Game.
 

-VR- Max Factor

-VR- Max Factor
AirshipCanon said:
That should never happen.
, if the owner of a Carrier is a pirate, the carrier should be their ultimate pirate ship, and if the local authority start a fight with Pirate Captain of a Pirate Carrier, the Carrier should rip the local authority a ing new one with those station-class guns, not do dumb . Hell, it should be a setting in the Carrier management that allows a Carrier to just fire on the Authority automatically [incurring bounties for the owner]

Now sure, if the owner of a carrier is a mad man and intentionally fires on their own carrier, sure, shoot him down.

But otherwise the owner of a Carrier should be protected by their carrier when the cops attack, not the other way around. A Carrier owner should also be exempt from the Carrier's No Fire Zone.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what laziness got to do with it.
 

here_it_comes

here_it_comes
Definitely not laziness, but the decision of managers on how man hours are to be used. I'd bet money many of the code grunts are, themselves, frustrated by many of the things they are told to keep on the backburner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom