Carriers in Limited Access Systems

[VertigoWren]

FDev should mark certain systems as limited time access for carriers. This would be systems that have engineers, SagA, or up at the roof. Once a carrier jumps in a countdown begins. Lets say 2 weeks to be generous. Once the timer is up carriers will automatically be moved to an adjacent system or in the roof’s case several systems down.

These systems are plagued by carriers where their owners have banked years worth of upkeep and stopped playing. Its time to clean the galaxy of abandoned carriers.

There was another game decades ago with player housing that had a unique cleanup system. Players could tag a building as abandoned. That would start a timer and the owner would be the only able to shut that timer down. It was fun and engaging for the player and served a system cleanup function.

 

[varonica]

FDev should mark certain systems as limited time access for carriers. This would be systems that have engineers, SagA, or up at the roof. Once a carrier jumps in a countdown begins. Lets say 2 weeks to be generous. Once the timer is up carriers will automatically be moved to an adjacent system or in the roof’s case several systems down.

Having your empty carrier moved to a system you can't reach without your carrier may, I suggest, cause a few complaints.

 

[DemiserofD]

Having your empty carrier moved to a system you can't reach without your carrier may, I suggest, cause a few complaints.

So? They can always move their carrier early and avoid the problems.

I'd be more fond of a stricter approach; increase upkeep exponentially based on the number of carriers in a system, except for the first carrier in the system. Everyone else can pay a hundred million a day until decommission.

Or they can get in, do their business, and get out.

 

[varonica]

So? They can always move their carrier early and avoid the problems.

I'd be more fond of a stricter approach; increase upkeep exponentially based on the number of carriers in a system, except for the first carrier in the system. Everyone else can pay a hundred million a day until decommission.

Or they can get in, do their business, and get out.

Someone parks their carrier, leaves ship in system port, goes on holiday for a couple of weeks with no internet, finds carrier out of reach. This is a game, not a punishment system! If you can't leave a game for a few weeks without getting punished people will simply stop coming back. There are plenty of games I have stopped playing for a month and come back to only to find not only is my character and assets exactly the same and in exactly the same place, I actually get a "reward" for coming back.

What exactly happens if I park my carrier in a nearly empty system while I am away from the game for a month, there's a CG of some sort that drives a lot of carriers to that system, I suddenly get charged 100m day, lose my fleet carrier and all the cargo on board. No you can't base your game around a system of punishment. Even players who don't mean to get punished will eventually get bitten. They park their carrier in a busy system for a day to make some deliveries, there's a storm and the house gets hit by lightening and burns down, takes a couple of weeks to get stuff sorted and by the time they back to the game everything's gone, fleet carrier, cargo, the lot.

If I am to be honest, that's the silliest idea I have ever heard, you punish people for being away from the game they simply don't come back!

There may be a solution to the problem, but that isn't it!

 

[FX2K]

There could be a holding area. One spot per system dedicated to holding abandoned carriers, in a non-persistent manner.
This could be triggered after say x weeks / months of inactivity on the account, causing the carrier to be moved there automatically without penalty.
For the player, the carrier is available in that holding spot, but nobody else will see it, only their own if they are in the same holding state.
The player can then move it out of the system or back into a persistent slot upon return, or, it just goes into decommission state when the funds run dry.

 

[DemiserofD]

Someone parks their carrier, leaves ship in system port, goes on holiday for a couple of weeks with no internet, finds carrier out of reach. This is a game, not a punishment system! If you can't leave a game for a few weeks without getting punished people will simply stop coming back. There are plenty of games I have stopped playing for a month and come back to only to find not only is my character and assets exactly the same and in exactly the same place, I actually get a "reward" for coming back.

What exactly happens if I park my carrier in a nearly empty system while I am away from the game for a month, there's a CG of some sort that drives a lot of carriers to that system, I suddenly get charged 100m day, lose my fleet carrier and all the cargo on board. No you can't base your game around a system of punishment. Even players who don't mean to get punished will eventually get bitten. They park their carrier in a busy system for a day to make some deliveries, there's a storm and the house gets hit by lightening and burns down, takes a couple of weeks to get stuff sorted and by the time they back to the game everything's gone, fleet carrier, cargo, the lot.

If I am to be honest, that's the silliest idea I have ever heard, you punish people for being away from the game they simply don't come back!

There may be a solution to the problem, but that isn't it!

All of that is handily prevented by the exemption for the first carrier in the system. Lol.

 

[Peter Mannion]

Option A - Introduce these strict multi-variable carrier rules and cause some potential issues with carrier owners just because non carrier owners are not happy with how their system map is littered

Option B - Add a simple system map filter so they are hidden from view ...

 

[DemiserofD]

Option A - Introduce these strict multi-variable carrier rules and cause some potential issues with carrier owners just because non carrier owners are not happy with how their system map is littered

Option B - Add a simple system map filter so they are hidden from view ...

Honestly, I'd say most of the annoyance is on behalf of the carrier owners. It doesn't matter that much to a non-carrier owner if a system is empty or full; by contrast, it matters a lot to a carrier owner if they're utterly unable to move their carrier into a system forever because there's no incentive to ever move them out.

That's why I want a system that makes busier systems more encouraged to move, and exponential increase in upkeep based on the number of carriers in the system(with the exception of the first carrier in the system) seems like a good and relatively simple fix to me.

 

[Peter Mannion]

Honestly, I'd say most of the annoyance is on behalf of the carrier owners. It doesn't matter that much to a non-carrier owner if a system is empty or full; by contrast, it matters a lot to a carrier owner if they're utterly unable to move their carrier into a system forever because there's no incentive to ever move them out.

That's why I want a system that makes busier systems more encouraged to move, and exponential increase in upkeep based on the number of carriers in the system(with the exception of the first carrier in the system) seems like a good and relatively simple fix to me.

Who decides which systems will have this law/rule? How often will the list of systems be updated? Every week? What about systems around popular systems (like the several systems around shinrarta dezhra that are very busy)? Those all become like this also?

There is nothing really "simple" about this suggestion. What about a system that spontaneously becomes popular due to a mining rush or a particular event like a CG? What happens to people's carriers that were in that system before this event that come back to the game weeks later to find their carrier has charged them really high upkeeps?

This suggestion would kill carriers, especially for players who do not play regularly and don't want to be bothered with the hassle of logging on every day/week to check up on their carrier.

 

[DemiserofD]

Who decides which systems will have this law/rule? How often will the list of systems be updated? Every week? What about systems around popular systems (like the several systems around shinrarta dezhra that are very busy)? Those all become like this also?

There is nothing really "simple" about this suggestion. What about a system that spontaneously becomes popular due to a mining rush or a particular event like a CG? What happens to people's carriers that were in that system before this event that come back to the game weeks later to find their carrier has charged them really high upkeeps?

This suggestion would kill carriers, especially for players who do not play regularly and don't want to be bothered with the hassle of logging on every day/week to check up on their carrier.

It would apply everywhere. Universally. That's why it's so simple.

If you don't want to worry, don't leave your carrier in a system with other carriers in it. There are millions of empty systems. Problem solved.

 

[Snedex]

It would apply everywhere. Universally. That's why it's so simple.

If you don't want to worry, don't leave your carrier in a system with other carriers in it. There are millions of empty systems. Problem solved.

So I get punished for other player actions that are beyond my control, can do nothing about, and am expected to check in on the regular and play musical chairs on a galactic scale incuring more costs for a charge that doesn't make sense.

Hard Pass.

 

[CardioTherapy]

Option A - Introduce these strict multi-variable carrier rules and cause some potential issues with carrier owners just because non carrier owners are not happy with how their system map is littered

Option B - Add a simple system map filter so they are hidden from view ...

That is not the problem. The main issue is carriers overcrowding systems for months or years blocking the access for other carriers. Once a system is overcrowded with carriers the oldest present carrier just needs to be moved to a neighbouring system and that is all to free slots for new carriers. An example is the most popular system with crystalline shards. bringing carrier there is to avoid flying to the distant planets but it is commonly overcrowded. carriers staying there for weeks can be just relocated automatically.

 

[CardioTherapy]

Having your empty carrier moved to a system you can't reach without your carrier may, I suggest, cause a few complaints.

Coming back from a long leave and if you cannot reach your carrier you can always jump back your carrier. It should be moved to a neighbouring system

 

[varonica]

All of that is handily prevented by the exemption for the first carrier in the system. Lol.

No it isn't, you conveniently ignored the example that wasn't, funny that.

I will quote it so you can address it by itself;

They park their carrier in a busy system for a day to make some deliveries, there's a storm and the house gets hit by lightening and burns down, takes a couple of weeks to get stuff sorted and by the time they back to the game everything's gone, fleet carrier, cargo, the lot.

That example makes no suggestion that the visiting CMDR is the first carrier, he could be the hundredth, but with no way to move his carrier he will lose it and/or billions in credits due to something he has no control over.

 

[varonica]

Coming back from a long leave and if you cannot reach your carrier you can always jump back your carrier. It should be moved to a neighbouring system

As long as there is enough fuel in the tank, most explorers store all their extra fuel in the cargo space and I have often run it nearly dry to save having to swap ships and refuel after every jump, so a player may have parked their carrier at the top of the galaxy and it gets moved a couple of systems away, and they are all carrier range only up there, so unless some friendly CMDR ferries you there you are stuck.

 

[varonica]

That is not the problem. The main issue is carriers overcrowding systems for months or years blocking the access for other carriers. Once a system is overcrowded with carriers the oldest present carrier just needs to be moved to a neighbouring system and that is all to free slots for new carriers. An example is the most popular system with crystalline shards. bringing carrier there is to avoid flying to the distant planets but it is commonly overcrowded. carriers staying there for weeks can be just relocated automatically.

You can park literally one jump away, and if you are really complaining about having to fly to a planet, there are crystalline shards all over the place, it's certainly not as if this is the only system with them and therefore you must go to it! I mean there are 440 systems with crystalline shards in the Sanguineous Rim alone, you can't possibly fly to another one to get your fill of easy mats? That's a bizarre argument to say the least.

I mean why even go to the most popular system, that would be the one to avoid! Surely that makes sense, don't go there, pick another of the available 440 systems!

 

[Ian Doncaster]

All of that is handily prevented by the exemption for the first carrier in the system. Lol.

There are more carriers than inhabited systems, though, so if they implement this then every single system worth taking a carrier to will already have one in it.

exponential increase in upkeep based on the number of carriers in the system(with the exception of the first carrier in the system) seems like a good and relatively simple fix to me.

So it'd be reasonably cheap if there were two carriers in the system and you might put up with it, then 100 carriers suddenly show up for a CG and you're hit with a giant bill?

Basing it on arrival order - so carrier 2 pays 1.1x, carrier 3 pays 1.21x, etc. - would avoid that, but if anything make it less likely that anyone would move and give you their parking spot!

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

Make people apply for residential parking permits. If you park your carrier on my street without displaying the correct permit in the window, some jobsworth comes along and clamps it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There are more carriers than inhabited systems, though, so if they implement this then every single system worth taking a carrier to will already have one in it.


So it'd be reasonably cheap if there were two carriers in the system and you might put up with it, then 100 carriers suddenly show up for a CG and you're hit with a giant bill?

Basing it on arrival order - so carrier 2 pays 1.1x, carrier 3 pays 1.21x, etc. - would avoid that, but if anything make it less likely that anyone would move and give you their parking spot!

I think you'd need a set of actions rather than just a fee really. I mean, what if (unless you had a secure cargo module) you could hack and steal (bug dependent) carrier cargoes and fuel?

FCs have defences and security vessels that would make this tricky (depending on how well liked you are )- couple this with being able to 'go dark' (switch off your nav entry, or set it to squadron only / invite only) then you'd have carriers that could be hidden or have to be hunted, meaning you'd have pressure to go somewhere out of the way which might even things out. Add a fee based on system (so high sec / high tech) level it might make parking more interesting- could you imagine the feeding frenzy of a CG system where people could steal an FCs tritium, cargo etc? The norms would have to find places to park which don't paint targets on them, as well as charging less (or at all if its uninhabited).

 

[VertigoWren]

Fdev would be the ones that choose which systems are limited access I know a few carriers out there that have 30-50 years worth of upkeep. This problem with abandoned carriers won’t get better without action.

I like the abandoned carrier graveyard system. Have a permit locked system within 500 ly of the bubble. If your carrier is placed there the owner receives temporary access to the system.

To the Cmdrs that say what if i leave the game for a few months/year? Well i say to you why would you care if Fdev moved you then? You’re literally hindering access to active players.