Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 115

Thread: Handling Fleet Carriers in 2018 - Fleet Carrier Concept

  1. #31
    Originally Posted by CMDR Kantos Kan View Post (Source)
    I think these are great ideas.

    There is only one thing that puzzles me: how can you sell your commodities to the market? I mean, if the carrier is way outside the bubble, how can you buy or sell commodities to the market?
    Maybe you could not buy commodities but only sell them to the market. If in deep space the market values could assume some fixed balanced value. It would be nice to give traders / miners some love in the carrier concept.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by CMDR Kantos Kan View Post (Source)
    I think these are great ideas.

    There is only one thing that puzzles me: how can you sell your commodities to the market? I mean, if the carrier is way outside the bubble, how can you buy or sell commodities to the market?
    I believe he covered that, it's tied to the local (ie system wide) commodity market. So that particular function would presumably only work in systems that already have commodity trading. That was my understanding anyway.

    edit - or not!

    second edit:
    Originally Posted by andrak View Post (Source)
    Maybe you could not buy commodities but only sell them to the market. If in deep space the market values could assume some fixed balanced value. It would be nice to give traders / miners some love in the carrier concept.
    Or perhaps sell within a certain ly range of a system with a commodity market. Maybe range could increase with better modules but nearest system would have to always set the price. That should be flexible enough to help miners mine in un-populated systems.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by andrak View Post (Source)
    Instead of being critical of Frontier, I'm offering a detailed concept, with mock up images, on how I'd like FD to implement fleet carriers in 2018. As said in the video, this is my opinion, what I want to see and I'm not claiming I speak for everybody.

    Mods, I'd appreciate it very much if you could please let this run for a while in dangerous discussion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6arhWcrGSp8


    The concept covers:
    • Outfitting
    • Module Attachments
    • Storage
    • NPC Crew Positions
    • Squadron Goals
    • Squadron Missions
    • Carrier Damage and Consequence
    • Carrier Relocation
    • Livery


    I'd like to address the following issues:
    • Content, challenge, reward for end game players
    • Material, data, credit and time sinks
    • Player storage limits
    • Player custom home bases of operations
    • Conveniences and costs associated with them
    • Keeping players of different skill levels and play times together



    Hopefully this sparks some more ideas and debate and it would be interesting to see what others think.

    Thanks go to CMDR Ashelai and CMDR Porky McBacon for their input.
    Very cool concept +1

  4. #34
    Excellently presented!

    My only gripe is that the idea is too good, too refined, and too meaningful for the game to be implemented by Frontier. For a devoted group of professional working on their own thing, it doesn't look or feel good to let a single handed amateur (forgive me if you are not!) to tell them what to do to fix their thing. Specially with such a central and game changing idea such as this. Even though listening to good ideas and implementing them should be, ultimately, good PR or whatever, I don't think FD is willing to implement this with the implications of doing so. Because to do so, can be seen as an admittance of them not being able to creatively fix the game. On a psychological level, imagine being a game designer or a team of designers facing the decision of implementing the genius idea of an amateur outsider on his spare time (in contrast to their own professional careers). If they let this advice dictate how to make the game, then why are they, the designers trying to fix the game, necessary to begin with?

    Hopefully, personal interests wont get in the way to let this vision set the standard on how squadrons should work.

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by Besensec View Post (Source)
    Excellently presented!

    My only gripe is that the idea is too good, too refined, and too meaningful for the game to be implemented by Frontier. For a devoted group of professional working on their own thing, it doesn't look or feel good to let a single handed amateur (forgive me if you are not!) to tell them what to do to fix their thing. Specially with such a central and game changing idea such as this. Even though listening to good ideas and implementing them should be, ultimately, good PR or whatever, I don't think FD is willing to implement this with the implications of doing so. Because to do so, can be seen as an admittance of them not being able to creatively fix the game. On a psychological level, imagine being a game designer or a team of designers facing the decision of implementing the genius idea of an amateur outsider on his spare time. If they let this advice dictate how to make the game, then why are they necessary to begin with?

    Hopefully, personal interests wont get in the way to let this vision set the standard on how squadrons should work.
    I would hope that they are big enough to admit a good idea (assuming this is one), when they see it. For the good of the game as a whole.

    EDIT - Also thanks and it's a interesting POV psychologically.

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by CMDR Kantos Kan View Post (Source)
    Like the OP stated, the carriers shouldn't be destroyed. If their hull gets to a certain percentage, they would retreat. Where? What about they retreat to the same system they came from, like when you rebuy? If you're in a war against another squadron, that would be a significant defeat as you would have to start the same long trip to get back in the fight. Just an idea.
    And if damaged to their retreat threshold in the system to which they retreat? I'm having flashbacks of an AD&D quest to slay a mad god - killing the avatar on the material plane, then chasing it down to a retreat in the Astral plane, defeating it once more only to have to chase it to its Outer Planar lair to slay it there, once and for all.
    But where would it retreat to at that point?

    From my own perspective, I don't ever see me participating in this way. I don't care for shooting at other players, be they alone or in squadrons or entire armadas. PvP isn't for me.
    I could potentially see my own use of a Carrier though to lead research teams to far and distant places to carry out research. I could see taking a squadron of aspiring Xeno-archaeologists out to the Guardian Ruins. But ultimately the usage here would be limited to eliminating a 20+ jump route out to a starting point and a number of intermediate jumps.

    Aside from serving as a sort of mobile command taxi, I could potentially see one other use for a Carrier - and that would be to load a fleet of cargo cutters up in a system with cheap goods, jump to a CG system, and offload all those cutters to bombard the CG with materials and mass profit sharing. Add that with the tens of thousands of tons of storage the video makes mention of, and you've got a CG completion machine of epic proportion. Tier 10 in a day? Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. We'd need 100 Tier CG's or more to keep them relevant, or from paying out in the billions.

    I can also see using a Carrier as the base of operations for a Mining Consortium - a full Carrier loaded with mining ships, come to strip the resources of an entire planetary ring is a beautiful thing in my eyes.

    Again, I think there's a lot of speculation, hype-building and expectation setting in here, enough to reach critical mass when this doesn't live up to even a percentage of the wishful thinking here.

    But don't get me wrong either - I'm not against the idea of Carriers - I'm in favor of them. Help the people who just want to blow each other up go broke faster and keep them all together for easier staying away from, and I couldn't be happier. Unfortunately it seems all the thoughts revolving around these are "how I can use them to better blow people up?" while the rest of professions are left in the lurch.

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by IndigoWyrd View Post (Source)
    But don't get me wrong either - I'm not against the idea of Carriers - I'm in favor of them. Help the people who just want to blow each other up go broke faster and keep them all together for easier staying away from, and I couldn't be happier. Unfortunately it seems all the thoughts revolving around these are "how I can use them to better blow people up?" while the rest of professions are left in the lurch.
    I disagree with most of your post but this is the only part I especially want to address. It is such a negative and detractive way of looking things. Why would you *want* something to be less than it could be? What sort of prepare for failure mindset is that? Perhaps that may well end up being the reality, I wouldn't know because I'm not prescient. Are you?

  8. #38
    Amazing.

    And there I was complaining today, that the players aren't interested in discussing the topic, which even made me start my own, what I hate to do

    But seems to be completely different from what Frontier announced. It was supposed to be mostly "refuel, refit and respawn". If they wanted to introduce even half of what you have proposed, they would probably need at least half-a-year development time on the carrier only. With all the related features it would be probably more like a year.

    There are also some things which will probably never happen - like shared material storage. A sure way of introducing real money trading into the game. "You will get access to our G5 material storage for only 20$! Don't waste time on gathering them by yourself! PM me to get a squadron invite!"

    I loved the themes of the wing missions though, even if they would end up much simpler, which they probably will

    I'm also agreeing that it is probably the perfect time to start with ideas on what we want to see. One year isn't too long for development. Once Frontier have their own base ideas and start with the design they will be hard to change. And Frontier clearly stated - they want our ideas on the squadrons.

  9. #39
    Awesome!

    Can't wait to be utterly dissapointed and crushed when FDEV implement fleet carriers.

    Who would win? 100 FDEV developers or 1 enthusiastic fan?

  10. #40
    + REP

    Excellent idea and presentation (far better than a wall of text). I have been wary and a little sceptical of the whole Squadron Ship mechanic, could see too many wanting to create their one little fiefdoms to the detriment of others. But your ideas would work. The collective ownership of the asset and all the mats it contains is a good idea but could be open to being abused. Not by the Squadron itself, but one disgruntled member could decide to empty the coffers of a specific hard to obtain mat. I know you said that any Squadron member breaking the rules could be evicted and carry a black mark, that is a good idea if the player was going to try to join another squadron. I would much rather that in addition to the black mark the player receives a global bounty of significant proportions. Of course this would probably have to be petitioned to the FD Admins, the Squadron Commander pleading his case so to speak. At least that way, the player couldn't commit the infraction in Open, then go and hide in Solo. He would end up always wary of Authority Ships, bounty hunters and have to restrict himself to Anarchy systems to dock. Of course the Squadron would provide the bounty (only paid if a player Commander hands it in).

  11. #41
    I think that it is a great idea (and I don't see Fdev being adverse to adopting it, seeing as they are constantly asking for player feedback). I would make carriers destroyable though --even if that should be a tough thing to do given their size. Ships on board would also be destroyed; undocked ships would have to find their own way home. There needs to be jeopardy involved in going deep into the black, and a sense of dependency on the carrier as your home out there as the squadron collects materials and fuel (scooping) for its continued maintenance and repair. Hey, it's Elite Dangerous!

    Travel is also well-considered: a far bigger jumps range than a ship (but with limits) and a charge time longer than it tales to just fly your ship there.

  12. #42
    Originally Posted by nexxo View Post (Source)
    I think that it is a great idea (and I don't see Fdev being adverse to adopting it, seeing as they are constantly asking for player feedback). I would make carriers destroyable though --even if that should be a tough thing to do given their size. Ships on board would also be destroyed; undocked ships would have to find their own way home. There needs to be jeopardy involved in going deep into the black, and a sense of dependency on the carrier as your home out there as the squadron collects materials and fuel (scooping) for its continued maintenance and repair. Hey, it's Elite Dangerous!

    Travel is also well-considered: a far bigger jumps range than a ship (but with limits) and a charge time longer than it tales to just fly your ship there.
    That would be a very painful thing to experience. You are suggesting the loss of carrier, all ships within (all of them could be fully engineered), all the crew on board the carrier as well.. Would you be able to rebuy all this? Would it come with a rebuy on all the carrier modules as well? This sounds like way too much to lose.

  13. #43
    Originally Posted by nexxo View Post (Source)
    I think that it is a great idea (and I don't see Fdev being adverse to adopting it, seeing as they are constantly asking for player feedback). I would make carriers destroyable though --even if that should be a tough thing to do given their size. Ships on board would also be destroyed; undocked ships would have to find their own way home. There needs to be jeopardy involved in going deep into the black, and a sense of dependency on the carrier as your home out there as the squadron collects materials and fuel (scooping) for its continued maintenance and repair. Hey, it's Elite Dangerous!

    Travel is also well-considered: a far bigger jumps range than a ship (but with limits) and a charge time longer than it tales to just fly your ship there.
    I humbly disagree, to be able to lose not only the Carrier but everything on it (mats, trained NPCs, docked ships) could be a game ending event for players. Lets say you get a bunch of your friends to form a Squadron, you work hard to outfit it, and it gets destroyed. Everything you have will have gone as I image the rebuy on a carrier would be very very large.

    I like the OP's idea that at a given damage percent the Carrier automatically disengages from combat and high wakes back to it's previous destination. This would encourage planning by the Squadron. Lets say the Squadron decides to move to a specific system 2,000 LY away, within a single jump range the OP suggested. Now they could do that in one jump but risk the possibility that if things turn bad, some of their Squadron ships will be stranded. Maybe they could be smart, do their initial jump to a system 1,800 LYs. Whilst waiting for the week long FSD cooldown (another excellent idea BTW) the squadron can start on the objective, 200 LY isn't far for most ships to travel. Then once the cooldown is over, the Carrier can jump into the target system. If things go bad, it will jump back to it's last destination, only 200 LY, not too close to the incident but still allows any Squadron ships that weren't docked (I would imagine there would be a 'call to arms' if the Carrier was attacked and all available squadron commanders would be in their personal ships helping defend it). Add to the fact the OP has already suggest that any repairs to the Carrier would be very time consuming and costly to the Squadron would be enough penalty to suffer.

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by andrak View Post (Source)
    Maybe you could not buy commodities but only sell them to the market. If in deep space the market values could assume some fixed balanced value. It would be nice to give traders / miners some love in the carrier concept.
    But, if you're in the middle of nowhere, where is the market? I mean, those commodities are physical goods. They take up space in your cargo hold. If you're in the middle of nowhere, how can you sell? To whom?

  15. #45
    Originally Posted by CMDR Kantos Kan View Post (Source)
    But, if you're in the middle of nowhere, where is the market? I mean, those commodities are physical goods. They take up space in your cargo hold. If you're in the middle of nowhere, how can you sell? To whom?
    The same way it works in the bubble I suppose. Maybe an NPC Type 6 or Keelback jumps into your carrier instance now and again and docks at your carrier when you have a market connection purchased, if that maintains "immersion".

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast