Carriers: make them uber as people want, but with significant Megaship like flaws

[Robert Maynard]

Nobody is questioning the difference between owning something and not owning something. I'm stating that owning something doesn't magically change the actual activities being discussed here.

It quite obviously changes the way in which players can direct the asset, in the case of a Carrier, or attempt to influence an outcome, in the case of a Faction. One outcome is certain - the other may or may not happen.

I doubt you're asking how do carriers help players influence the bgs, because that is obvious. but carriers themselves are not allowed to in the same way as a station that his part of a system is allowed to. But this distinction doesn't really matter for anything being discussed here. How much or how little a station or even system is impacted by the factions is controllable by fdev, as we see with special systems like founders world. That doesn't exclude them from being considered part of the shared galaxy environment or bgs.

Indeed I was not.

Many players can choose to fund a carrier so that it can be directed to do something. One player may choose to influence a faction and no others. You're trying to show that only 1 person is invested in the asset and so an attack on the asset is an attack on the player but that's not true, nor is it unique.

Many may donate funds to a player with the intention of that player buying a Carrier - however they have no in-game say over the direction of the Carrier - and the player can't be forced to actually purchase a Carrier with any donated funds - and players can't force a Carrier to accept funds for upkeep - the owner retains control of that too.

This whole thread is about creating carrier opposition. That's the opposition being discussed here. I'm pretty sure we're all aware it doesn't currently exist.

It is - and not all participants agree that it would be a good idea, even if it does appeal to the play-style preference of some other participants.

pvp by proxy is PVE in this game. all of PVE exists in this definition you have of pvp because there is no action you can take in the BGS that doesn't go along with or oppose any other player's action in the game. That's how it works.

So i guess to you this game only has pvp. Just varying levels of how much the pvp matters to a given player.

While BGS actions might possibly occur in opposition to the desires of other players there's no guarantee that there are any players being opposed - in which case it's not PvP at all.

The game is mainly PvE with occasional PvP (either in-the-same-instance or indirect).

And what do you call pvp where two players are actually in the same instance directly opposing eachother? Since i would assume you would want to differentiate this from pvp?

Direct-PvP (or isti-PvP), i.e. in the same instance, engaged in combat.

You're trying to define pvp as something that can involve a player in solo where the "owner" of what is being opposed isn't even logged on and could have had absolutely no part in what is being lost/gained. yea, i'd think if you're keen on defending that that you're going to have to just move on because it's wrong.

Like UA bombing, if players could attack Carriers from any game mode / platform then I expect that there'd be a number of players quite tickled at the opportunity to affect others' gameplay with no repercussions. Unlike UA bombing, which had no guarantee of affecting the gameplay of any specific individual, each Carrier is a player owned asset - so the effects of potential Carrier attack would be targeted against the owner of the Carrier.

I suppose if some players want their Carriers to be able to be attacked as a way of enhancing their gameplay they could suggest to Frontier that a flagging system be implemented - so that Carriers so flagged could be readily identified as their owner being happy to engage in that sort of gameplay - and un-flagged Carriers would remain unbothered by the attentions of those with a penchant for attacking Carriers.

 

[Nadreck]

I've seen claims that "there is no griefing in ED". The argument is that people consent to attack by logging into Open (though others disagree, saying that they consented to "meeting other players" rather than being blown up, hence those asking for a flag/setting or whatever).

If you don't want to get attacked by other players, play in Solo. If you want to play with friends, play in Private Group.

So, if Carriers are ever made attackable, the same MUST apply. If you're not logged on, I suppose there would have to be a flag indicating what mode you were in when you were last on.

If I am, or was, in Solo, my Carrier must be invulnerable. Frontier will never change this.

The alternative is to allow griefing of unconsenting players (even when they are offline). And it's rather pointless to argue that the Carrier "can defend itself": its capabilities are fixed, and griefers will figure out how much firepower is needed to succeed against an unattended Carrier, and will bring enough. We'd then be in a situation where Carriers would have to be somehow defended by a large squadron capable of providing 24-hour protection (and, somehow, across modes).

This is going nowhere.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've seen claims that "there is no griefing in ED".

Indeed - which is odd given how many times Sandro mentioned griefing in his posts - it's as if Frontier are aware that it can happen even if some are in denial.

 

[Brrokk]

Griefing happens in every multi-player game. A small proportion of players would rather annoy other people than play a game, so they just use the game as a vehicle. All games therefore have to be designed so that those people can't do too much damage, either to individual players or the game as a whole. This is all so well known that I'm puzzled anyone would bother to dispute it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Griefing happens in every multi-player game. A small proportion of players would rather annoy other people than play a game, so they just use the game as a vehicle. All games therefore have to be designed so that those people can't do too much damage, either to individual players or the game as a whole. This is all so well known that I'm puzzled anyone would bother to dispute it.

Quite - hence the existence of the modes and the block feature, to give players ways to influence who they may meet in game - and probably why, when Frontier made Carriers both persistent, pan-modal, and pan platform, they also chose to make them invulnerable to players.

 

[Darth Ender]

Quite - hence the existence of the modes and the block feature, to give players ways to influence who they may meet in game - and probably why, when Frontier made Carriers both persistent, pan-modal, and pan platform, they also chose to make them invulnerable to players.

they chose to treat them like npc bgs / shared galaxy assets because that's what they are.

They are simply another proxy between player actions in the game like any other station is a proxy for such actions.

They are not extensions of the player's character like player's ships are and not in direct opposition of players any more than any normal bgs activity can be in regards to an intended state a player wishes it to be in.

A carrier is not a player but an asset a player can enable things on and disable things on and move to places and restrict access to.

Their current invulnerability can be as easily explained as the same as why stations are invulnerable until fdev decides to create a mechanism that allows them to be damaged.
A similar mechanism can easily be applied to carriers with the same logic as what allows them to be applied ot other traditional stations. Be them triggered by some accumulated player(s) activity (either directly or via bgs states) or via something entirely npc triggered (like thargoid attacks are).

That's why i said i dont agree with directly attacking carriers being a game mechanic, but I do think players in groups or just coincidentally together, can trigger a BGS event that portrays the attack on the carrier (the same way thorgoids are being currently handled) and players can directly sway that event for or against.

In this way we retain the isolation of the carrier as a shared galaxy assset that is a proxy only directly interactive with players thru the bgs or station ui and we dont have to add any new gameplay features or change in behavior by making it some kind of hybrid directly impacted unit like fake-ish mega ships

 

[Gordon Freeman IV]

I would finally be able to gank a carrier! My journey of being a ganker would be complete!

 

[Darth Ender]

Griefing happens in every multi-player game. A small proportion of players would rather annoy other people than play a game, so they just use the game as a vehicle. All games therefore have to be designed so that those people can't do too much damage, either to individual players or the game as a whole. This is all so well known that I'm puzzled anyone would bother to dispute it.

nobody is. It's like the design that fdev created to mitigate it is being ignored by some players and then complained about when things dont go their way or they refuse to use the design that allows them to circumvent the issue.

These are well known features of the game and yet continually ignored as the tool to use to solve their problem. Instead they would wish to do the exact thing they're complaining about against other players.

If someone's idea of a fun time is to go around murdering unsuspecting players who are really easy targets where else are they going to go but open? Open is where that is allowed to happen. If someone doesn't want to be surprised by the activities of other players, there are other modes for them to use to ensure that. And a lot work went into creating a proper new player area that marginalized any chance at preying on them while they were initially learning the game.

So I'd be in the camp that in open, you can't be killed unwantedly because that's the point of the mode. You dont know if any player will kill you for any reason at any time. There are other modes for when you want more of a guarantee. This inclination toward danger and not toward safety is a tagline to the game so the lack of bubblewrap or defaults to mitigate potential risk and leaving it in players hands is intentional and should be expected by players. Nobody tricked them into thinking it would be safe.

But these modes apply to things that aren't part of the shared galaxy ...because everything that is, is equally interactable and impacted by the actions of other players regardless of modes. So I dont believe it should be expected to be tied to the mode the owner is in, unless it was no longer part of the shared galaxy. Ie, if you want it tied to just your mode / instance / choices as an owner, then it should be un-interactable at all good or bad by any other player not in your group. So open would be shared galaxy visible to all, private would only be seen by people in the same private group, and solo would be only seen by the owner.

This means if you want to leverage the benefit of other players activity with your carrier, it should also be vulnerable to the negative activity of players. If you want to choose to not utilize the benefit of other players interacting with your carrier, you can set it as such. But it's an either/or, you dont get the benefits without the risks. And i'd make it a once a week state change option so it flips on the weekly tick if you've made a change to not load the servers with a bunch of rapid changes.

 

[Darrack]

To be honest there is no point wasting much time on this and certainly no point getting worked up about it, its never going to happen.

O7

 

[Darth Ender]

To be honest there is no point wasting much time on this and certainly no point getting worked up about it, its never going to happen.

O7

Such is the fate of anything in the "suggestions" forum. It's a forum specifically to waste time and get worked up over things that wont happen. Did you want this going on in the general discussion forum ? cuz it used to be that way. It was generally decided that this was a better option.

 

[Brrokk]

nobody is. It's like the design that fdev created to mitigate it is being ignored by some players and then complained about when things dont go their way or they refuse to use the design that allows them to circumvent the issue.

These are well known features of the game and yet continually ignored as the tool to use to solve their problem. Instead they would wish to do the exact thing they're complaining about against other players.

If someone's idea of a fun time is to go around murdering unsuspecting players who are really easy targets where else are they going to go but open? Open is where that is allowed to happen. If someone doesn't want to be surprised by the activities of other players, there are other modes for them to use to ensure that. And a lot work went into creating a proper new player area that marginalized any chance at preying on them while they were initially learning the game.

So I'd be in the camp that in open, you can't be killed unwantedly because that's the point of the mode. You dont know if any player will kill you for any reason at any time. There are other modes for when you want more of a guarantee. This inclination toward danger and not toward safety is a tagline to the game so the lack of bubblewrap or defaults to mitigate potential risk and leaving it in players hands is intentional and should be expected by players. Nobody tricked them into thinking it would be safe.

But these modes apply to things that aren't part of the shared galaxy ...because everything that is, is equally interactable and impacted by the actions of other players regardless of modes. So I dont believe it should be expected to be tied to the mode the owner is in, unless it was no longer part of the shared galaxy. Ie, if you want it tied to just your mode / instance / choices as an owner, then it should be un-interactable at all good or bad by any other player not in your group. So open would be shared galaxy visible to all, private would only be seen by people in the same private group, and solo would be only seen by the owner.

This means if you want to leverage the benefit of other players activity with your carrier, it should also be vulnerable to the negative activity of players. If you want to choose to not utilize the benefit of other players interacting with your carrier, you can set it as such. But it's an either/or, you dont get the benefits without the risks. And i'd make it a once a week state change option so it flips on the weekly tick if you've made a change to not load the servers with a bunch of rapid changes.

I mostly agree about Open, but what I meant was: carriers are yet another game feature which had to be designed so that griefers couldn't damage thre game. I think that's why the risk in your last paragraph isn't possible.

Griefers are why we can't have nice things. (To that extent, they actually succeed in annoying most of us).

 

[Rubbernuke]

UA bombing was removed overnight after some "enthusiasts" went too far, so Frontier removed it with effectively no warning. Allowing players to adversely affect player owned persistent assets would be much the same as UA bombing, in principle - jollies for the attackers and makework for the defender.

UA bombing was removed because FD forgot to switch off black markets for (IIRC) Dove Enigma. Its also funny that when this happened to the Kumo Crew in Harma they laughed about it and made it player lore, rather than over-reacting.

Also: there is a massive difference between what I'm suggesting (which is limited piracy only) to disabling an entire station that can only be brought back online by rare goods being delivered. The objective is to make FCs that are unwelcome uncomfortable enough they want to leave.

Some Carriers have already dispersed - the DSSA has been in place for some time, for the benefit of the player-base as a whole. Player passenger services on the Bubble-Colonia route have been in place for some time, for the benefit of the player-base as a whole.

'Some' is not all. At a lot of CG systems, or PMF areas, or in general they cluster and don't benefit anyone bar themselves. If you want them gone, tough you can't.

Players can argue that it's the same 'til their blue in the face - they won't own a Faction at the end of it any more than they did at the beginning, which is to say "not at all". Offering ones support for a Faction does not confer any ownership or control. Same with players who insist that their Squadron owns a Faction simply because they (and any other Squadron) can affiliate their Squadron with a Faction. Players don't stand to lose any assets when a Faction is adversely affected - a Faction can be retreated from a system and the player's assets won't be affected.

To many PMFs the time invested to them is tangible.

There's a fundamental failure to agree on the "should be" with regard to whether or not Carriers could be evicted from systems by player action, more so with regard to players gaining the ability to affect player assets as and when they choose regardless of how the owner wants to play the game or even whether the player is online, much less in the same instance.

Destruction is out of the question, stealing fuel is also out of the question (unless you allow for a protected amount for one jump) since that will maroon FCs, so the only other choice is the cargo on board, or the surrounding NPCs as options to make owners want to move. Neither endanger the carrier itself, just the unprotected cargo or people visiting.

It's that last part which is the main sticking point - in the game we all bought (regardless of play-style preference) players can only affect the assets of players who choose to instance with them, regardless of how much they might wish to. That some players can't accept that and propose ways to allow them to force their gameplay on those disinterested in their play-style is obvious - and has been since the game design was published.

Its funny how rich players can force carriers to be in a place forever while poor ones can't do anything about that.

---

If faced with the prospect of a change to the game that introduced forced PvP, I'd much rather that the galaxy was duplicated and permanently split - one Open only galaxy for those who can't accept that players don't need to engage in PvP in this game and don't want to share the game with those they can't shoot at, and the existing tri-modal shared galaxy for those who can share the game with those they can't (and likely don't want) to shoot at.

Or you simply find a better place to park? No-one is shooting at anyone, its your FC being nibbled for cargo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

UA bombing was removed because FD forgot to switch off black markets for (IIRC) Dove Enigma. Its also funny that when this happened to the Kumo Crew in Harma they laughed about it and made it player lore, rather than over-reacting.

Also: there is a massive difference between what I'm suggesting (which is limited piracy only) to disabling an entire station that can only be brought back online by rare goods being delivered. The objective is to make FCs that are unwelcome uncomfortable enough they want to leave.

One likely reason - there may have been others.

Some players like that sort of gameplay, some obviously don't.

'Some' is not all. At a lot of CG systems, or PMF areas, or in general they cluster and don't benefit anyone bar themselves. If you want them gone, tough you can't.

Indeed - they are personal assets over which other players exert no influence.

To many PMFs the time invested to them is tangible.

That does not change the situation.

Destruction is out of the question, stealing fuel is also out of the question (unless you allow for a protected amount for one jump) since that will maroon FCs, so the only other choice is the cargo on board, or the surrounding NPCs as options to make owners want to move. Neither endanger the carrier itself, just the unprotected cargo or people visiting.

In the case of my Carrier, the vast majority of the cargo is fuel - stored ahead of time to allow it to travel a significant distance at no notice - watching that being leeched just because a player wanted to would not be exciting - it'd be a bit sad really.

Its funny how rich players can force carriers to be in a place forever while poor ones can't do anything about that.

It's funny how some players seem to be quite indignant that other players can do as they please without them being able to retaliate in some way for a perceived slight.

Or you simply find a better place to park? No-one is shooting at anyone, its your FC being nibbled for cargo.

Playing at hide-and-seek to avoid Carriers being leeched of cargo by parasitic players would not be exciting gameplay - it'd be wish fulfilment for a particular type of player.

 

[Nadreck]

Its funny how rich players can force carriers to be in a place forever while poor ones can't do anything about that.

They can ignore them. Admittedly that would be easier if Frontier finally provided the often-requested filter options:

1. Ability to remove them from the system map (possibly other options too, such as removing Carriers that you aren't allowed to dock at, or having a single icon with a number to indicate "multiple Carriers here").

2. Ability to filter out all Carriers from the nav panel EXCEPT the one you're operating from (not necessarily one you own). A simple bookmark override would do it: if you have anything bookmarked, it won't get filtered out.

There are very few systems that are completely filled with Carriers (and usually plenty of nearby systems you can park in if that happens). Most of the angst directed at Carriers is due to the "clutter". It would be MUCH better for Frontier to finally address that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

One likely reason - there may have been others.

Some players like that sort of gameplay, some obviously don't.

That was the reason. For such a sensitive event FD bungled it, and now we have one less thing we can do because of it.

Indeed - they are personal assets over which other players exert no influence.

And if 'those player assets' are crushing your PMF, what then? Its a pretty one sided BGS war if one person can crush another using an invincible asset.

That does not change the situation.

To the PMF it does not. PMFs complain bitterly about wasted time.

In the case of my Carrier, the vast majority of the cargo is fuel - stored ahead of time to allow it to travel a significant distance at no notice - watching that being leeched just because a player wanted to would not be exciting - it'd be a bit sad really.

Is that all of them? Or just the explorers who this won't affect at all? Its any ability to make owners think twice about moving to a system.

If its so sad too, why are you so afraid of it? One minute its horrific PvP, the next its something comical.

It's funny how some players seem to be quite indignant that other players can do as they please without them being able to retaliate in some way for a perceived slight.

Robert, its a competitive game. The 'slight' is that invincible FC invading a PMFs space and not being able to change that.

Playing at hide-and-seek to avoid Carriers being leeched of cargo by parasitic players would not be exciting gameplay - it'd be wish fulfilment for a particular type of player.

Sadly Robert the game is an ecosystem, and for that to work players and their assets need to fit into that. Its not like players are defenseless, they just have to think more than clicking 'go here'. Right now the only way to prevent FCs going to one place is to stuff it will FCs.

 

[Rubbernuke]

They can ignore them. Admittedly that would be easier if Frontier finally provided the often-requested filter options:

1. Ability to remove them from the system map (possibly other options too, such as removing Carriers that you aren't allowed to dock at, or having a single icon with a number to indicate "multiple Carriers here").

2. Ability to filter out all Carriers from the nav panel EXCEPT the one you're operating from (not necessarily one you own). A simple bookmark override would do it: if you have anything bookmarked, it won't get filtered out.

There are very few systems that are completely filled with Carriers (and usually plenty of nearby systems you can park in if that happens). Most of the angst directed at Carriers is due to the "clutter". It would be MUCH better for Frontier to finally address that.

The UI certainly needs work in this regard. Just having a nav beacon set to various levels might do it too- so everyone / my wing / my friends etc.

 

[Ettanin]

And if 'those player assets' are crushing your PMF, what then? Its a pretty one sided BGS war if one person can crush another using an invincible asset.

The BGS is a popularity contest. If you can't beat them, make others join your forces to overwhelm hostile influence. Work for your faction to negate the effects.

Robert, its a competitive game. The 'slight' is that invincible FC invading a PMFs space and not being able to change that.

PvP is optional. The ability to attack a player's assets directly is forced PvP. ED is not the game for that. Any player-induced action that affects a player's assets in any way, shape or form, without their consent, is forced PvP.

Sadly Robert the game is an ecosystem, and for that to work players and their assets need to fit into that. Its not like players are defenseless, they just have to think more than clicking 'go here'. Right now the only way to prevent FCs going to one place is to stuff it will FCs.

EVE suits better for your needs then. ED doesn't need to be changed to suit just your needs.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The BGS is a popularity contest. If you can't beat them, make others join your forces to overwhelm hostile influence. Work for your faction to negate the effects.

Which is very true, but, why is it you can't take direct action against the actual problem? Plus, to counter an FC you then need an FC.

PvP is optional. The ability to attack a player's assets directly is forced PvP. ED is not the game for that. Any player-induced action that affects a player's assets in any way, shape or form, without their consent, is forced PvP.

Then use some judgement and not park in the faces of others, perhaps to keep it safe? Or invest in better internals (such as secure storage)? Its not like people can land and simply steal everything.

EVE suits better for your needs then. ED doesn't need to be changed to suit just your needs.

Then we will just have to disagree.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Then we will just have to disagree.

Please do. This thread is going absolutely nowhere, and that was already obvious 6 pages back.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And if 'those player assets' are crushing your PMF, what then? Its a pretty one sided BGS war if one person can crush another using an invincible asset.

How does a BGS inert asset go about "crushing your PMF"?

To the PMF it does not. PMFs complain bitterly about wasted time.

Complaining changes nothing.

If its so sad too, why are you so afraid of it? One minute its horrific PvP, the next its something comical.

It's a bit sad that players assume that other players and their assets are provided as their playthings. Few players, as suggested by the recent INARA statistics (all game modes, last 30 days, sample size of tens of thousands of commanders), initiate or are engaged in in PvP in this game - in a game where PvP is an entirely optional extra when engaging in in-game activities.

Robert, its a competitive game. The 'slight' is that invincible FC invading a PMFs space and not being able to change that.

It's not one that permits players to attack players who choose not to play with them - nor their Carriers which Frontier chose to make persistent and pan-modal.

Sadly Robert the game is an ecosystem, and for that to work players and their assets need to fit into that. Its not like players are defenseless, they just have to think more than clicking 'go here'. Right now the only way to prevent FCs going to one place is to stuff it will FCs.

It's an ecosystem that does not revolve around the desires and wants of those who wish to force PvP on other players (or their assets).