For context: I am not a member of any player groups, and tend to blaze my own trail in elite.
I would primarily only be interested in carriers from two reason given the price tag:
1) Exploration.
2) Module/cargo storage.
3) Roleplay/lore reasons
4) mission rearm/repair in systems with not large landing pads or long super cruise distances.
5) Save on rebasing many ships between maia and the bubble etc. (does not look like a viable option at the moment due to continual upkeep)
Feedback:
1) Base price is fine. The maintenance seems reasonable from what we have seen so far for player groups utilizing carriers in the bubble. For anyone off the beaten path the cons far out weight the pros. Having a mothballed state where a large lump sum (100 million+ ?) could be used to mothball a carrier for long term storage, and subsequently reactivated later for another large lump sum rather than the current decommissioning/partial refund system (or as an alternative). When mothballed carriers would have far reduced or no maintenance costs.
2) Carrier congestion in (some popular) systems could get crazy. Engineering unlocks are going to be somewhat meaningless in their current form after carriers are added. Will hitching a ride on a carrier count for the 5k of palin's unlock? Being able to get cargo for unlocks (both engineering and tech brokers) right where they are needed kinda undercuts the point of an unlock at all. (compared to the cargo cost vs how easy it is to mine VO or LTDS). The 100% max premium is basically trivial for the few tons of cargo needed. How will it be determined who gets the closest spots to the engineer etc? Those systems might very well become over cluttered nightmares. Restriction should be in place in more than just permit locked systems. ( perhaps carrier system permits to keep carriers 20 ly + from engineer bases etc.)
3) For exploration (outside of distant worlds etc) carriers seem almost pointless except accessing pockets of systems that can not otherwise be reached even in a 80 ly conda. Carriers need to have a way of making money out in the black due to maintenance costs. Exploration data would be the most obvious. 'Rare deposits' only found far from the bubble to collect/mine might be another. People could come in exploration ships and switch out to a mining kit on the carrier, either sell to the carrier, or ferry it back to the bubble. The carrier could either sell to other players at a markup, or carry the cargo back to the bubble themselves. The 'rare deposits' would need to be depletable so new ones would need to be found via exploration. Docking fees or exploration berths spaces based on time payable in carrier fuel or credits might be viable too, but would need a way to lock in a route/ jump schedule ahead of time so paying passengers know what they are getting into.
4) More variants in size or jump range etc. Double the capacity but only 100 ly range, or 1/4 the space but 2000 ly range etc. It would help carriers be more useful for the different ways people might want to use them. (large groups, small groups, explorers etc) Having them all be cookie cutter Drake class carriers seems a wasted opportunity. Trading off higher base price for a reduced maintenance cost (via slaves or automation) might be a way to appeal to a wide number of players. One size fits all is not a great way to get wide spread adoption of carriers long term. Different players have different use cases, and different needs in a carrier.
Suggestions:
1) Stripped down non-modifiable/non-mobile carrier variant that only provides storage, and is dockable. It would have the same base cost as normal, but lower/no up keep. It would be deliverable to a fixed home system, and would only be visible to the purchaser and their squadron if any. Currently i have an alt account more or less dedicated to storing cargo that is a pain to go get as needed. (things like ua/up/ul and other tech broker type stuff etc.)
2) Being able to assign storage quotas for squadron members, or at least allowing it rather than only the owner being able to use the storage seems like a no-brainer. Alternatively allowing storage space to be 'rented' would be another way for carrier owners to recoup maintenance fees.
3) Allowing two carriers per player. One to make money and one to explore, or having two carriers as part of a coordinated shuttle service with carriers at both destination and starting point at all times. This could also alleviate possible space related issue. One carrier for normal in-bubble stuff, and on fitted for exploration/shipyard/squadron storage etc.
4) 'Sponsored' expeditions. In exchange for covering the maintenance cost (or at least the lions share of it) of a carrier all exploration data sold on the carrier will go to the benefit of the 'sponsoring' super power (or possibly the Pilots federation or UC). There could be strings attached such as they want data from a given region/sector, or scans of certain types of celestial bodies. Failure to do so, or if the carrier remains in the bubble might make the super power angry, and they might pull support. There would need to be things out there to find that would be of use to the super power possibly relics/materials/data/mined mats left from ancient civs or whatever (possibly even older than guardians/thargoids.) It could be part of a renewed dynamic competition among the powers with exploration/science, trade, and combat aspects driving super power influence etc. It could also lead to tech advances by one super power over the others, but then the other powers might pay more for exploration data, or pay more toward exploration expeditions etc.
5) Something findable only out of the bubble that is rare, highly valuable and quickly depletable. A stable transuranic a la Elerium in x-com renamed etc. that allows for advanced tech. (if we are ditching galnet/lore stuff we might as well add less hard sci-fi tech.) Carriers could be used as safe places to stock pile it out in the deep black. Once the area is mined out you let other players know where the carriers is and that it is selling the Elerium etc.
6) How are we going to search for a carrier or see what they sell? Unlike typical economies what carriers are selling/buying needs to be conveyed some way. Some way to search or advertise for the carrier's and their activities/capabilities/selling/buying etc. I could see people trying to troll players by only selling biowaste etc or only having e rated modules. As it stands it looks like we are going to need even more third party tools.
7) Specialist modules that allow for customization of capabilities aside from the services we can add. A refinery that takes ore and refines it to the metal etc would be one example. A breeder reactor or similar that gives more flexibility on fueling the carrier (allow select metallic/rocky/hydrogen etc to be converted into tritium.) Exploration drones that provide minimal info on nearby systems. Cargo return canisters.
8) Partial fuel burn for partial range jump.
9) Buy ships and other resources like modules at wholesale prices say 5~15% discount so players are not priced out from the get go. It might be tied to jumping the carrier to the headquarters of a manufacturer like Lakon to stock Lakon ships at a discount etc. (preferably it would not be restricted, but it might a compromise to make the discount workable. Rep with the superpower tied to the manufacturer might be another way to gate the discount.
10) Tying maintenance to jumping more heavily, and paying crew with a cut of all profits made by the carrier. Having a solely jump based degradation of the carrier (in place of the current real world time based costs in addition to the 'jump wear' costs) would not penalize on and off players so harshly. The degradation/wear could shut down services progressively, and ultimately shut down the carriers beacon so it would not show in other player's game at all rather than removing it completely. The lower the state of the carrier the more it would cost to bring it back into service. This way the 5 billion is a sunk cost that never gets refunded even in part unless the player scraps it for ~25% of the current residual 'value'.
I would primarily only be interested in carriers from two reason given the price tag:
1) Exploration.
2) Module/cargo storage.
3) Roleplay/lore reasons
4) mission rearm/repair in systems with not large landing pads or long super cruise distances.
5) Save on rebasing many ships between maia and the bubble etc. (does not look like a viable option at the moment due to continual upkeep)
Feedback:
1) Base price is fine. The maintenance seems reasonable from what we have seen so far for player groups utilizing carriers in the bubble. For anyone off the beaten path the cons far out weight the pros. Having a mothballed state where a large lump sum (100 million+ ?) could be used to mothball a carrier for long term storage, and subsequently reactivated later for another large lump sum rather than the current decommissioning/partial refund system (or as an alternative). When mothballed carriers would have far reduced or no maintenance costs.
2) Carrier congestion in (some popular) systems could get crazy. Engineering unlocks are going to be somewhat meaningless in their current form after carriers are added. Will hitching a ride on a carrier count for the 5k of palin's unlock? Being able to get cargo for unlocks (both engineering and tech brokers) right where they are needed kinda undercuts the point of an unlock at all. (compared to the cargo cost vs how easy it is to mine VO or LTDS). The 100% max premium is basically trivial for the few tons of cargo needed. How will it be determined who gets the closest spots to the engineer etc? Those systems might very well become over cluttered nightmares. Restriction should be in place in more than just permit locked systems. ( perhaps carrier system permits to keep carriers 20 ly + from engineer bases etc.)
3) For exploration (outside of distant worlds etc) carriers seem almost pointless except accessing pockets of systems that can not otherwise be reached even in a 80 ly conda. Carriers need to have a way of making money out in the black due to maintenance costs. Exploration data would be the most obvious. 'Rare deposits' only found far from the bubble to collect/mine might be another. People could come in exploration ships and switch out to a mining kit on the carrier, either sell to the carrier, or ferry it back to the bubble. The carrier could either sell to other players at a markup, or carry the cargo back to the bubble themselves. The 'rare deposits' would need to be depletable so new ones would need to be found via exploration. Docking fees or exploration berths spaces based on time payable in carrier fuel or credits might be viable too, but would need a way to lock in a route/ jump schedule ahead of time so paying passengers know what they are getting into.
4) More variants in size or jump range etc. Double the capacity but only 100 ly range, or 1/4 the space but 2000 ly range etc. It would help carriers be more useful for the different ways people might want to use them. (large groups, small groups, explorers etc) Having them all be cookie cutter Drake class carriers seems a wasted opportunity. Trading off higher base price for a reduced maintenance cost (via slaves or automation) might be a way to appeal to a wide number of players. One size fits all is not a great way to get wide spread adoption of carriers long term. Different players have different use cases, and different needs in a carrier.
Suggestions:
1) Stripped down non-modifiable/non-mobile carrier variant that only provides storage, and is dockable. It would have the same base cost as normal, but lower/no up keep. It would be deliverable to a fixed home system, and would only be visible to the purchaser and their squadron if any. Currently i have an alt account more or less dedicated to storing cargo that is a pain to go get as needed. (things like ua/up/ul and other tech broker type stuff etc.)
2) Being able to assign storage quotas for squadron members, or at least allowing it rather than only the owner being able to use the storage seems like a no-brainer. Alternatively allowing storage space to be 'rented' would be another way for carrier owners to recoup maintenance fees.
3) Allowing two carriers per player. One to make money and one to explore, or having two carriers as part of a coordinated shuttle service with carriers at both destination and starting point at all times. This could also alleviate possible space related issue. One carrier for normal in-bubble stuff, and on fitted for exploration/shipyard/squadron storage etc.
4) 'Sponsored' expeditions. In exchange for covering the maintenance cost (or at least the lions share of it) of a carrier all exploration data sold on the carrier will go to the benefit of the 'sponsoring' super power (or possibly the Pilots federation or UC). There could be strings attached such as they want data from a given region/sector, or scans of certain types of celestial bodies. Failure to do so, or if the carrier remains in the bubble might make the super power angry, and they might pull support. There would need to be things out there to find that would be of use to the super power possibly relics/materials/data/mined mats left from ancient civs or whatever (possibly even older than guardians/thargoids.) It could be part of a renewed dynamic competition among the powers with exploration/science, trade, and combat aspects driving super power influence etc. It could also lead to tech advances by one super power over the others, but then the other powers might pay more for exploration data, or pay more toward exploration expeditions etc.
5) Something findable only out of the bubble that is rare, highly valuable and quickly depletable. A stable transuranic a la Elerium in x-com renamed etc. that allows for advanced tech. (if we are ditching galnet/lore stuff we might as well add less hard sci-fi tech.) Carriers could be used as safe places to stock pile it out in the deep black. Once the area is mined out you let other players know where the carriers is and that it is selling the Elerium etc.
6) How are we going to search for a carrier or see what they sell? Unlike typical economies what carriers are selling/buying needs to be conveyed some way. Some way to search or advertise for the carrier's and their activities/capabilities/selling/buying etc. I could see people trying to troll players by only selling biowaste etc or only having e rated modules. As it stands it looks like we are going to need even more third party tools.
7) Specialist modules that allow for customization of capabilities aside from the services we can add. A refinery that takes ore and refines it to the metal etc would be one example. A breeder reactor or similar that gives more flexibility on fueling the carrier (allow select metallic/rocky/hydrogen etc to be converted into tritium.) Exploration drones that provide minimal info on nearby systems. Cargo return canisters.
8) Partial fuel burn for partial range jump.
9) Buy ships and other resources like modules at wholesale prices say 5~15% discount so players are not priced out from the get go. It might be tied to jumping the carrier to the headquarters of a manufacturer like Lakon to stock Lakon ships at a discount etc. (preferably it would not be restricted, but it might a compromise to make the discount workable. Rep with the superpower tied to the manufacturer might be another way to gate the discount.
10) Tying maintenance to jumping more heavily, and paying crew with a cut of all profits made by the carrier. Having a solely jump based degradation of the carrier (in place of the current real world time based costs in addition to the 'jump wear' costs) would not penalize on and off players so harshly. The degradation/wear could shut down services progressively, and ultimately shut down the carriers beacon so it would not show in other player's game at all rather than removing it completely. The lower the state of the carrier the more it would cost to bring it back into service. This way the 5 billion is a sunk cost that never gets refunded even in part unless the player scraps it for ~25% of the current residual 'value'.