Carrier Overload

Rackham's Peak has recently become completely deadlocked. With no player-based solution in sight, this seems like the perfect time to fix this issue once and for all.

Carrier Location Transmitter

The Location Transmitter would be an integrated module on all carriers. Its function is simple: When it's turned on, it draws power and displays the Carrier's location to other players. When it's turned off, it stops drawing power and becomes invisible to other players.

Under the hood, here's what would happen. When the transmitter is turned off, the Carrier is moved to a non-location list in the server. It does not technically exist at all, and the server does not check its location. It is saved on this list until the transmitter is turned back on again. On the owner's end, the location of the carrier is stored in their save data. If they tell it to jump somewhere else, their game calculates if it's possible, without consulting the server at all. The carrier can go anywhere, even completely full systems, because it does not require a dedicated parking spot, like objects that are actually stored on the server and saved in the limited format used there.

However, because of this, the carrier is not visible to other players, unless they drop in on a wingmate's instance. This is identical to dropping in on another player's Signal Source. If you log out, you will log back in floating in empty space somewhere near where the carrier had been, exactly like a signal source.

Once the player decides to turn this transmitter back on, the server checks the list, and 'jumps' the carrier from the list of carriers, to its new location. Just as with standard jumps, if the system is full, the 'jump' will fail. The system must not have too many carriers in it, in order for the carrier to become visible.

Finally, using the Transmitter will have a varying cost. If you turn it on in an empty system, you can use the cheapest and least energy intensive broadcast band, which only costs a trivial amount to maintain; lets say 100k/week. However, each additional carrier will have a progressively higher cost, because it takes more energy to be heard with other carriers in the system. This will increase the cost of turning on the transmitter by 50%(multiplicatively) per player.

100k, 150k, 225k, 337.5, 506.25, 759.375, 1.14m, 1.71m, 2.56m, 3.84m, 5.77m, 8.65m, 13m, 19.5, 29.25, 43.9, 65.8, 100m, and so on.

This way, players in high-traffic systems will be encouraged to keep theirs invisible.

And the problem will be solved.
 
I would tie this visibility to who you allow access your Fleet Carrier.

If you allow everyone to dock , then it would be like it is today...
If you select squadron/friends, then everyone on your friends list/squadron list will be able to see the Fleet Carrier beacon.
If you select owner only, just you will be able to see Fleer Carrier beacon


As there is no real use case to have a carrier visible to everyone and then not allowing them to dock.
 
The only reason Rackhams Peak is packed is because for some stupid reason this tiny outpost will buy endless amounts of alcohol. The real issue is the deeply flawed BGS.
 
The only reason Rackhams Peak is packed is because for some stupid reason this tiny outpost will buy endless amounts of alcohol. The real issue is the deeply flawed BGS.
double-facepalm-memes.jpg

 
The only reason Rackhams Peak is packed is because for some stupid reason this tiny outpost will buy endless amounts of alcohol. The real issue is the deeply flawed BGS.
I disagree this is necessarily a flaw with the BGS... since on this occasion the prices are simply because of manual tweaking by FD... so instead it's lack of foresight by poking things without planning.
 
I disagree this is necessarily a flaw with the BGS... since on this occasion the prices are simply because of manual tweaking by FD... so instead it's lack of foresight by poking things without planning.
And if it didn't consistently buy alcohol at excessive prices, no-one would go there at all beyond the occasional tourist visit anyway, just as the other FC-only stars on the edge of the galaxy don't get much traffic (and just as Rackham's Peak didn't before the station went in)
 
Rackham's Peak has recently become completely deadlocked. With no player-based solution in sight, this seems like the perfect time to fix this issue once and for all.
Im rather happy glad that thats what not happen to cygni x-3(yet). I think its much more better place than Rackham's Peak, but its not widely as well known. Also, I rather have all those console carriers out of bubble anyway. If Rackham's Peak is one of thier graveyards, so be it.

By over time, if left out, those carriers will naturally be gone. Surely it will take many years for most of them, to burn thier billions from balances, or it maybe be manually removed by FDevs.. in one way or another, Rackham's Peak wont be deadlocked forever, I think.


Carrier Location Transmitter

The Location Transmitter would be an integrated module on all carriers. Its function is simple: When it's turned on, it draws power and displays the Carrier's location to other players. When it's turned off, it stops drawing power and becomes invisible to other players.

Under the hood, here's what would happen. When the transmitter is turned off, the Carrier is moved to a non-location list in the server. It does not technically exist at all, and the server does not check its location. It is saved on this list until the transmitter is turned back on again. On the owner's end, the location of the carrier is stored in their save data. If they tell it to jump somewhere else, their game calculates if it's possible, without consulting the server at all. The carrier can go anywhere, even completely full systems, because it does not require a dedicated parking spot, like objects that are actually stored on the server and saved in the limited format used there.

However, because of this, the carrier is not visible to other players, unless they drop in on a wingmate's instance. This is identical to dropping in on another player's Signal Source. If you log out, you will log back in floating in empty space somewhere near where the carrier had been, exactly like a signal source.

Once the player decides to turn this transmitter back on, the server checks the list, and 'jumps' the carrier from the list of carriers, to its new location. Just as with standard jumps, if the system is full, the 'jump' will fail. The system must not have too many carriers in it, in order for the carrier to become visible.

Finally, using the Transmitter will have a varying cost. If you turn it on in an empty system, you can use the cheapest and least energy intensive broadcast band, which only costs a trivial amount to maintain; lets say 100k/week. However, each additional carrier will have a progressively higher cost, because it takes more energy to be heard with other carriers in the system. This will increase the cost of turning on the transmitter by 50%(multiplicatively) per player.

100k, 150k, 225k, 337.5, 506.25, 759.375, 1.14m, 1.71m, 2.56m, 3.84m, 5.77m, 8.65m, 13m, 19.5, 29.25, 43.9, 65.8, 100m, and so on.

This way, players in high-traffic systems will be encouraged to keep theirs invisible.

And the problem will be solved.
Intresting concept, but it would be nightmare to implement to current engine. And part with FC server checking its not even possible for frontier's server, due of it and game design.

But I would love to have my carrier be "stealth", it would fit much more better to its role. In end, I dont need anyone random to land on my carrier, only chosen ones would. Having it be not easly visible to another players would be nice.

Still, regadless if carrier is "invisible" or not, its location (whenever visible only to owner or all) still need be checked with server, as like every other action, such as when jumping to another system. If not enough data is send into server, or not enough its recived, thats when we have coloured ship named errors. There is plently more examples, but in general, game need check any action done with server.

Frontier server itself and its design, its limited as we all know. It has hard time to maintain stable, when it is overloaded. Its capacity its limited. Thats why there is such thing as carrier limit to system. Why? Cuz they made those servers long before anyone on FD would think about FC's at all. They not prepared it well enough. But yeah, P2P surely is much more cheaper to maintain than dedicated servers that would otherwise handle such data, but it would be much more expensive in cost as well.

Currently, without "help" from frontier, not many cmdrs can see at once wich each other, but rather automatically divided into numerous instances instead... But every time when there is massive cmdrs meetup on single instance, it will cause overload to server and anyone else will see variety of errors.
 
Im rather happy glad that thats what not happen to cygni x-3(yet). I think its much more better place than Rackham's Peak, but its not widely as well known. Also, I rather have all those console carriers out of bubble anyway. If Rackham's Peak is one of thier graveyards, so be it.

By over time, if left out, those carriers will naturally be gone. Surely it will take many years for most of them, to burn thier billions from balances, or it maybe be manually removed by FDevs.. in one way or another, Rackham's Peak wont be deadlocked forever, I think.



Intresting concept, but it would be nightmare to implement to current engine. And part with FC server checking its not even possible for frontier's server, due of it and game design.

But I would love to have my carrier be "stealth", it would fit much more better to its role. In end, I dont need anyone random to land on my carrier, only chosen ones would. Having it be not easly visible to another players would be nice.

Still, regadless if carrier is "invisible" or not, its location (whenever visible only to owner or all) still need be checked with server, as like every other action, such as when jumping to another system. If not enough data is send into server, or not enough its recived, thats when we have coloured ship named errors. There is plently more examples, but in general, game need check any action done with server.

Frontier server itself and its design, its limited as we all know. It has hard time to maintain stable, when it is overloaded. Its capacity its limited. Thats why there is such thing as carrier limit to system. Why? Cuz they made those servers long before anyone on FD would think about FC's at all. They not prepared it well enough. But yeah, P2P surely is much more cheaper to maintain than dedicated servers that would otherwise handle such data, but it would be much more expensive in cost as well.

Currently, without "help" from frontier, not many cmdrs can see at once wich each other, but rather automatically divided into numerous instances instead... But every time when there is massive cmdrs meetup on single instance, it will cause overload to server and anyone else will see variety of errors.

Why do you think it would be a nightmare to implement?

The reason I think this could work is because it uses many of the same mechanics currently used. When the carrier becomes invisible, it simply jumps out of the system. The server just 'lands' it in a list, rather than a physical location. When you want to make it visible again, the server again just 'jumps' it to its current location. Since it's using the same basic mechanics, it should be fairly straightforward.

Then you just use the same mechanics for local storage as you do with Signal Sources. Those only exist on the player's computer. When the player drops in there, it can load the carrier and all the details just like a signal source. Of course, you would still need to check with the server for stuff like inventory and such, but there's no need to check the location of the carrier to do that.

Hopefully, the entire process could be fairly simple and straightforward using primarily resources that already exist.
 
Frontier server itself and its design, its limited as we all know. It has hard time to maintain stable, when it is overloaded. Its capacity its limited. Thats why there is such thing as carrier limit to system. Why? Cuz they made those servers long before anyone on FD would think about FC's at all. They not prepared it well enough. But yeah, P2P surely is much more cheaper to maintain than dedicated servers that would otherwise handle such data, but it would be much more expensive in cost as well.
This is not caused by server issues. it is caused by the way they implemented those carriers. They are added to the system in the same way suns/planets/etc are added to the system and there is a limit on how many such entities there can be in a system, as each entity in the systems must have a unique identifier, so as more and more Fleet Carriers enters a system, we will run out of unique identifiers... this also means, that a systems that have plenty of planets and suns, can host fewer Fleet Carriers, than a system with a single sun.

It makes sense why they did it this way, as now Fleet Carriers can be visible in all modes on all platforms. The bad part is, that many Fleet Carriers makes no sense to use this system... as they are for personal or squadron/friends use, so why need to show to it everyone when a limited amount players needs to see it, as they are the only ones that are allowed to dock.




So trying to blame this on P2P is wrong...
 
Back
Top Bottom