you drive a car you need tax insurance mot to get to work,you fly a carrier do the same,run a few missions each week to pay the cost OR dont have a carrier,and no you dont have to have billions,just credit management,no good spending with out earning,sounds like you are fairly new at this game,dont lose hope;this day you do not need a carrier,its a bonus.
Cannot belive why carrier system lock is not adressed ?
- Thread starter Puke Dawson
- Start date
Interesting Analogy. In the Real World the Restaurant would probably get the cars blocking the parks towed if they had been there for that long.
In the real world, cars don't get towed just for parking, no matter how long. As long as the car registration is valid and the "whatever organisation checks safety in your country"-plaque isn't expired, you can park in a free parking spot as long as you please.
Last edited:
I haven't moved my carrier in over six months. I've found my perfect little spot somewhere in the bubble, and will be camping there for the foreseeable. Am I doing it wrong?
You must live in an interesting Country.
I live in a civilized one with consistent rules where nobody can "have your car towed" when you don't break any of those rules.
Last edited:
I think you know the answer.
You have been reported to the appropriate party authorities
Are we talking about the same thing still?
Don't know about you, but I think I am.
You tell me. I didn't start talking about towing cars.
Doesn't have to be serverside. It could be the client automatically retrying at set intervals. That's basically what happens already with a player doing it. Though as a player I'm am rerequesting the jump as quickly as the UI lets me.
I've learnt years ago that you never place your carrier in the actual destination system, mainly because you get the issue of no slots available, but your ship doesn't see the travel distance in game you've made until you jump into a system. So placing you carrier in a random system anything from 5 to 20lys away, gets you that 'travelled' marker and, on the return you can normally be around the main star so no ls to really travel on the way back.
FDev could create an algorithm for occupied systems that would run when 95-99% of system FC slots are full and move those that are stationary for more than 5 days to the closest unoccupied system. If that system becomes full, to the next, and so on.
If the FCs arrived in less than 5 days, send away those present using FIFO queue. It could activate on maintenance days.
I believe there is a similar routine that determines where a faction expands to.
No need for 6monthly relogs, and everyone could have a chance to the system. It wouldn't affect DSSA Carriers.
If the FCs arrived in less than 5 days, send away those present using FIFO queue. It could activate on maintenance days.
I believe there is a similar routine that determines where a faction expands to.
No need for 6monthly relogs, and everyone could have a chance to the system. It wouldn't affect DSSA Carriers.
Simple fix.
The only thing that makes carriers take up system slots is their market and allowing other players to dock and store their ships. Most players solo their carrier.
sell a variant of the carrier without these features. Then the carrier can be non-persistent and you can have an unlimited number in a system because they would only exist in the owner's instance.
These carriers would have no jump wait time, no concern for how many other carriers are in a system or slot...and nobody else would see your carrier unless they were sharing your instance. Could keep everything else about them visually the same to keep implementation cheap.
Problem solved. Most players would have these kinds of carriers and that will free up system slots for those that still want markets and multiplayer carriers.
The only thing that makes carriers take up system slots is their market and allowing other players to dock and store their ships. Most players solo their carrier.
sell a variant of the carrier without these features. Then the carrier can be non-persistent and you can have an unlimited number in a system because they would only exist in the owner's instance.
These carriers would have no jump wait time, no concern for how many other carriers are in a system or slot...and nobody else would see your carrier unless they were sharing your instance. Could keep everything else about them visually the same to keep implementation cheap.
Problem solved. Most players would have these kinds of carriers and that will free up system slots for those that still want markets and multiplayer carriers.
You mean like, a personal fleet carrier? Would love on myself, I routinely have all other players blocked from landing, never sell anything on the market, don't need those features at all!
forgive my ignorance as I don't own a fleet carrier but is the issue of fleet carrier maxing out on systems over commodities like emergency power cells which can't be made by players? Obvious answer is that scenario is removed and players can make them. If it's a case of CMM or suchlike I don't get the problem as two refineries + one tier 1 surface port produces all the materials you will ever need from a refinery point of view and so on. Might have to shop around 1 or 2 systems in the mix to get all the commodities needed for a station build but its no biggie.
Human nature - can I have one of each please?
Just 'cus
No.
Because the ui doesn't support multiple carriers. The idea is a solution that is the least effort to implement. This idea would involve minimal changes...the owner would interact with it the same way as they do now. So not much needs to be done beyond creating a unit type that behaves like a station to the owner but isn't persistant to the backend.