Not sure if this has been discussed as an idea. But With the mass amount of FC's in CG and near CG systems, that Never move, Ever, has it been considered implementing a tax for keeping a FC in CG space? Such as doubling the upkeep for every day you are in the CG space over a tick? Thus you can still interact without getting a penalty, but if you just stay parked there, it causes a incentive to move.
Fee for FC's in CGs?
- Thread starter Neoflame99
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cg fleet carrier
Been rejected as FC are 3.8 content not 4.0 pay wall content... shareholders wont like it as fdev said they're done with 3.8... thats why they set up the transfer to 4.0 from console to PC and pushed out EDH 4.0..
Doubled each day could be over a billion credits by the end of the week, depending on installed services [1]. Workable as a deterrent for CG participants if that's what you want - but rather harsh if you happened to park the FC in there, and went away for a couple of weeks during which there was a CG in your home system.
Tying it to the tick would make it much more of a problem for some timezones than others - if you're online over the tick, moving your carrier out temporarily to avoid the fee isn't a big deal but doesn't really free up space in the system. But a rolling 24-hour window for each carrier everyone could avoid by doing quick hops in and out.
There's several thousand people doing a typical CG, lots of them bring carriers, even with extra charges there'll still be a lot of carriers. Sometimes the CG systems are permit-locked, of course, if you want a change...
[1] Or if you just mean "the upkeep for that day is doubled" so if you're there all week you pay 20 million rather than 10 million, no-one will notice.
Surely the simplest solution would be to permit lock every CG location, with a permit issued to all players?
Of course, this does fall flat if it is a player's 'home system', as mentioned above, for which I have no reasonable solution.
Of course, this does fall flat if it is a player's 'home system', as mentioned above, for which I have no reasonable solution.
Is this actually a problem at all? The only issue I can see is if you have a carrier and can't get a parking spot. Smart carrier owners will usually get round this by parking in a nearby system anyway, so that they're just a jump from their carrier instead of a supercruise.
Have parking costs increase exponentially based on the number of carriers in system, and be locked at the time of jump in. That way, the first few carriers pay little to nothing, but the last few pay such exorbitant fees they move in a few minutes to hours.
The simplest solution is to make it so that there are no carrier parking issues. Sort in-system carriers into 'carrier signal instances', order numerically, that contain some number of the carriers in the system (say 25 per instance?) and just highlight the instance that contains your carrier in your nav panel. Anybody else trying to find someone else's specific carrier will just need to additionally know which instance to look for.
I don't support the notion of making things more frustrating for the players because of a fundamental game design flaw.
I don't support the notion of making things more frustrating for the players because of a fundamental game design flaw.
For the time being, this is the way. Any system within a single jump of your ship of choice will do, and what with Engineered + GFSD-boosted jump ranges, there's always ample systems within reach that also have 'parking spot' planets nice and close to the system jump-in point. It can actually be faster than parking in the CG system, owing to supercruise time.
The trouble is whether this is even possible. Of course if there are no limits, unlimited carrier space is ideal, but lacking that, something needs to motivate carriers to keep moving.
There's a subforum for suggestions.
o7
forums.frontier.co.uk
o7
Suggestions
Post your suggestions, feedback, and feature requests for the universe of Elite here!
What if it worked both ways? Higher costs in busy systems, but lower (or no) costs in an empty system?
I don't know, I always park in an adjacent system.. I can highwake for repairs and I can probably cut down the supercruise time. The exception is when I'm hauling stuff from a station to my carrier (or vice versa), where it's nice if it's only a short supercruise.
Implemented as an additional parking fee on top of the existing upkeep: no. It'd still be an additional cost incurred regardless of game activity. Implemented as a modifier on the existing upkeep, you'd have to come up with a definition for "busy." In practice that would probably mean my upkeep costs would go down, so ok... but I still think that's the wrong direction to take. If the issue is Fleet Carrier overcrowding due to game architecture (and there's no fix to the architecture problem), I'd rather see a UI improvement that gave you the choice to default to the next nearest open carrier slot as measured by number of Hyper Space Jumps plus Supercruise distance traveled. There are existing game loops that could be used to address the overcrowding issue as well:
[Suggestion] Fleet Carriers and PowerPlay
Regarding the Fleet Carrier overcrowding issue, I propose using the Conflict Zone game-loop to resolve the limited space issue. Having visited the destination system, you have access to the system map from the Fleet Carrier Navigation panel. From there, you'd target a specific Fleet Carrier in...
I don't much like the idea of having carriers forced out by the actions of others. It could get frustrating, since a player couldn't defend their spot and do what they wanted to do at the same time.Implemented as an additional parking fee on top of the existing upkeep: no. It'd still be an additional cost incurred regardless of game activity. Implemented as a modifier on the existing upkeep, you'd have to come up with a definition for "busy." In practice that would probably mean my upkeep costs would go down, so ok... but I still think that's the wrong direction to take. If the issue is Fleet Carrier overcrowding due to game architecture (and there's no fix to the architecture problem), I'd rather see a UI improvement that gave you the choice to default to the next nearest open carrier slot as measured by number of Hyper Space Jumps plus Supercruise distance traveled. There are existing game loops that could be used to address the overcrowding issue as well:
[Suggestion] Fleet Carriers and PowerPlay
Regarding the Fleet Carrier overcrowding issue, I propose using the Conflict Zone game-loop to resolve the limited space issue. Having visited the destination system, you have access to the system map from the Fleet Carrier Navigation panel. From there, you'd target a specific Fleet Carrier in...
As far as jumping to nearby systems is concerned, that just wouldn't fix the problem being highlighted. In some cases, such as Rackham's Peak, it would be impossible, while in others, like cg systems, it would defeat the whole point, since theres a massive difference between being 25mm away vs 1 jump and maybe 1000ls.
You think they code logic for that only to dismantle it after the event again? I don't think so.
Well done, you've identified the real problem. Not enough of these.
No, legalize loitering!