Proposals for the "too many FCs in some systems" issue
- Thread starter netchild
- Start date
Hmm, I would deliberately sit my FC in a system just to get towed to the Large Magellanic Cloud, as would many explorers, so that's probably not a "good" solution, but a useful one!
It would keep them from cluttering up the Milky Way.
Developers always can let the community choose what to do with a community goal... n megaships representing the possible options, where to deliver commodities, or where to deliver bounties... or something of the effect...
Implement a system where if a FC owner does not log on to the game in a certain amount of time (3 mo perhaps?) the FC is de-instanced from the servers. Not decommissioned, just removed from the galaxy as an object. Give the owner a menu option to re-activate it at no/little cost.
I mean, the solution was always "The game doesn't need FCs, don't put them in" but here we are.
The only realistic options are to either:
Would that seriously damage FC-based bubble trading? Sure, but that particular game activity was never needed in the first place. But hey, my bias is dramatically showing here... I'm just wondering how many other game mechanics with issues outlasting the life of FCs continue to be neglected in the name of trying to fix this farce.
The only realistic options are to either:
- Ban FCs from populated systems (preferred); or
- Put exponentially increasing costs on having your FC in a system even for a single minute in a billing cycle, and have it age off one increment each billing cycle.
Would that seriously damage FC-based bubble trading? Sure, but that particular game activity was never needed in the first place. But hey, my bias is dramatically showing here... I'm just wondering how many other game mechanics with issues outlasting the life of FCs continue to be neglected in the name of trying to fix this farce.
The idea to adjust the upkeep cost according to the parking system sounds interesting. Maybe the upkeep gets more and more expensive for all carriers in the same system the more fleet carriers are parked in? Then upkeep cost could just be doubled with each carrier.
1 carrier (you are alone): 5 M / week
2 carrier 10 M / week
3 carrier 20 M / week
4 carrier 40 M / week
5 carrier 80 M / week
6 carrier 160 M / week
7 carrier 320 M / week
8 carrier 640 M / week
9 carrier 1280 M / week
10 carrier 256 M / week
...
1 carrier (you are alone): 5 M / week
2 carrier 10 M / week
3 carrier 20 M / week
4 carrier 40 M / week
5 carrier 80 M / week
6 carrier 160 M / week
7 carrier 320 M / week
8 carrier 640 M / week
9 carrier 1280 M / week
10 carrier 256 M / week
...
That's silly, that's an exponential function, calculate the rate for 64 carriers, it comes to more than 18 quintillion credits, that's more money than the entire player base combined. And how do you calculate it, does the player have to stay the entire week, or do I drop in an hour before maintenance and get charged 18 quintillion credits for my trouble?
The problem is; which system do you get charged for; the most expensive? The one at the time of the billing? What if it was only expensive at the start of that week? Or at the end? What if it wasn't expensive when you arrived? What about malicious/ protest- based inflating, or otherwise trolling less rich carrier owners?
That was the first place my mind went to, but even systems like that are just either ripe for abuse, or completely ineffectual.
I suggest the upkeep cost is calculated according to the number of fleet carriers at arrival in the system and then from the next week on according to the number of fleet carriers where the new week started with. So you are the first carrier and pay 5 M when the week ends no matter if 20 other carriers arrived later. But you know to better leave the system if paying 5^20 M will be too much a week later.
Well now that we've well and truly necro'd this thread, I think a few points are in order:
First, the overwhelming majority of populated systems have 0-5 carriers in them. Any system that discourages operating carriers in populated systems across the board would rightly be seen as heavy-handed overkill.
Second, utility carriers like the DSSA stations are a thing. While I do imagine that most DSSA owners can manage to log in every few months, I really don't love removal based solely on idle time.
Put those together, and I think any reasonable solution does need to be based on traffic and congestion. FIFO is simplistic but easy to implement. Longest without activity might be a better criteria for eviction. Obviously some thought needs to go in to the exact rules for eviction and the system that relocates evicted carriers, but even something simple like a free jump to the nearest unpopulated system with fewer than a threshold number of carriers already strikes me as probably fine.
First, the overwhelming majority of populated systems have 0-5 carriers in them. Any system that discourages operating carriers in populated systems across the board would rightly be seen as heavy-handed overkill.
Second, utility carriers like the DSSA stations are a thing. While I do imagine that most DSSA owners can manage to log in every few months, I really don't love removal based solely on idle time.
Put those together, and I think any reasonable solution does need to be based on traffic and congestion. FIFO is simplistic but easy to implement. Longest without activity might be a better criteria for eviction. Obviously some thought needs to go in to the exact rules for eviction and the system that relocates evicted carriers, but even something simple like a free jump to the nearest unpopulated system with fewer than a threshold number of carriers already strikes me as probably fine.
of couse not.
So, what happens in the following scenarios:
- I start in an isolated system on my own. I jump into a system with a ~1b weekly fee for just 20 minutes, before jumping to another empty system, where I remain the rest of the week. (This behaviour seems undefined by your rules, and I could be charged either 5m or 1 billion. The former is abusable, the latter will lead to even more problems)
- I remain in a system alone for most of a week, only jumping to a system with a ~1b pricetag around 30 minutes before the billing cycle. This would suggest I would be charged 1b... but the converse would suggest I remain in a system with a 1b pricetag for most of the week, then go to a system with a 5m pricetag just before the billing cycle, then I would be charged 5m.
- I enter a system with a 5m pricetag, leave, then re-enter the system that same week.
- I coordinate with a group to schedule 100 FCs to jump in to the system all at once at the start of the cycle, when the bill is just 5m at the time each person locks the jump in, and then leave just as the billing cycle changes so it's again minimised.
- I do the above in order to grief a single FC by doing that over the billing cycle, then leave immediately after the new cycle ticks over, locking in a multi-billion bill for the one FC which was there.
I'm being somewhat rhetoric; you actually can't answer all of these without creating either major loopholes, an inconsistent ruleset, an abusable system, or all of the above.
