Luckily that's not what I said then.
Piracy has always been a thing. Even MS have piracy when FD got the hitbox right.
That might be workable idea
Just by virtue of having said this, you've displayed remarkable ignorance of Elite Dangerous and its history. It seems to me that there are a lot of people in this thread who don't PvP in any way themselves, and they project that onto the entire playerbase.
This is the only game I have ever played where anyone used the term "non consensual PvP". It's just PvP. If you have neither the skill nor the will to fight back against an aggressor in the Open environment, you aren't a victim of someone who isn't playing the game the right way - you're just the latest guppy to get swallowed by a bigger fish. Attempting to diagnose the purported mental condition that prompted them to delete you is pointless. You're playing internet spaceships, and if you choose to play it in Open, you're choosing to be in an environment where you are compelled to fight, die, or block people and hide from them in Solo like a rat beneath the subway tracks.
We are talking about piracy, and stealing from FCs in limited circumstances across all modes.
Yes it has, and still is. However this is piracy from all modes and therefore is more like MS piracy than interdicting / bopping someones hatch.
The Carrier clearly has a player owner - who has no choice in whether the Carrier is persistent and / or pan-modal in terms of existence / instancing. That would make attacks on Carriers a form of directed but indirect PvP.
This comment was directed at in game piracy right now.
It aligns FCs with other persistent assets.
Just like BGS attacks then- again, aligning everything.
In the idea they have several choices, where to park, at what level they advertise the carriers presence, when to leave, what level of security the hold has. Not to mention overcoming defences and / or security ships.
Legitimate but, from the perspective of the target, completely optional.
Indeed - invulnerable to player attack.
Significantly closer to direct than the BGS - as players don't pay for upkeep on any assets that their favoured faction(s) may own.
.... still with the "but they can be found even if thei are set to silent running" option for attackers.
Not really - as the pan-modal and persistent nature of the Carrier means that it is in the game all the time when the player won't be.
Piracy exists in PvE BGS as well as PvP remember, and FCs are persistent assets existing in that. They can't be exempt from everything.
Physical attack- just as megaships only explode for story reasons. Assets such as megaships can be pirated.
Is it? Pirating won't affect upkeep payments. Pan modal BGS effects of attacks can change a systems profitability and availability of things such as rares (esp for engineer unlocks) so I'd say its just the same- is denying others those rares 'griefing' too even though its legit BGS play?
They can, with effort. But the whole point is that if the FC moves more often (thus the core of the thread) you won't have huge piles of FCs in one place for long.
Yet Frontier consciously chose to make them, like stations, immune to player attack - and very likely for the same reasons that have been expressed by Devs in the past.
Indeed they can be.
Piracy would affect the contents of the Carrier. We all signed up to pan-modal BGS gameplay when we started playing the game.
Carriers would be easily trackable using 3rd party tools - all it would take is one player to upload their current location for them to be able to be targeted by those inclined to do so.
But you can attack them and pirate them to various degrees for various reasons.
And that cargo exists in the BGS and exerts an influence when used, but is immune.
Really? How would they do that if 3rd party tools respected the beacon flag in the idea (i.e. you set it to minimum the tool reports nothing)?
I never saw anyone fighting against a "use it or lose it" design and I wasn't aware that FD ever offered any such option. As I recall, upkeep costs existed when the FC design was first revealed. All the debate in the beta was about what size those costs should be; they were already a fundamental part of the design.Luckily that's not what I said then.
The DSSA people were vehemently fighting against a "use it or lose it" kind of design and were advocating for upkeep costs instead.
And now we have FCs with decades of allocated upkeep stored which never move and clog up the bubble. It felt a bit like the need of the few outweighed the need of the many in that case. But at least Frontier got a couple of articles on gaming news site about the DSSA out of it.
Attack what?
So does cargo in the hold of a ship that the player logged out of the game in - it's also immune to piracy by players
That assumes that they would.
