General Fleet Carrier: addressing lack of slots

[Scoob]

I must admit, I barely move my FC these days. The number of times I've wanted to jump somewhere and slots are taken in that, and surrounding systems just got old.

I don't know how to fix the "Carriers ALWAYS exist" thing, but it's a pain not to be able to use mine because I logged on too late for some new thing.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I think all this is really about people being salty about the Rackham situation. Everywhere else, parking isn't really a problem unless you expect to fall from your carrier into a station. Which is a bold expectation in popular systems.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I like variety, so I have one of each ship (minus the Panther for now) and also set myself a rule not to have more than one of each. Based on that I've set up roles for every single one. Some sure are redundant, like the plenty of combat ships. But I still fly every one from time to time. As I said, I like variety, and every ship has it's unique charm. All I want is being able to have all of these ships with me. And right now there's not known after how many new ships FDEV will stop with them. Although at a rate of 4 per year they can do it for 8 more years before doubling the original roster.

 

[Guenix]

. You registered specifically for that insult? Well done.

Yes i did. So what?

What you typed above: Right back at you. In the overwhelming cases, you can park your carrier less than 20 ly away from where you want to be, which for most ships is a single jump these days. That's hardly "a bike ride from 50 miles away".

As i said, the whole point was, to show how stupid that comparsion you started is. But at least my version shows, how it feels for some players. If you see different or dont agree, thats fine. Play it your way. "Park as far as you want". But dont blame other people like you did then, just because they think different and want to have fun in a GAME. A suggestion forum is a place ment to address such things. Without beeing blamed as lazy.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Yes i did. So what?

You're really special, aren't you.

 

[aRJay]

As someone who grew up in a mining village you can never get enough of the chap

O7

Marty Feldman, sadly missed.

 

[Darrack]

Marty Feldman, sadly missed.

Capstick

O7

 

[Static-LG]

One could actually increase the number of carriers in the system without changing the overall number of slots.
All you really need is the ability to cluster carriers in the same location. As in, you can jump a carrier to an existing carrier's location and they end up in a formation of some sort.

I'd personally love to see that, since it would let me jump my carrier into formation with other squad members.

As to how many carriers you can cluster in one location? No idea. That would be down to what the game code can get away with.

 

[Nidoboros]

Two words: Queue system

Queue system, on top of maybe a parking meter (not hugely detrimental). I still like the idea of titan-bombing a carrier to force them to emergency jump somewhere else (I understand why this isn't a thing, but perhaps it becomes an option after your parking meter expires?)

Meters/Queues should really only exist in certain systems. If a carrier performs an emergency jump while you are offline, it won't finish the jump until you log back in, and you can maybe pick the emergency jump destination when you log in? Just so people don't run you out thousands of light years while you're asleep.

Or even just when you queue in, you include a 'I will be in-system for (x-time), after which I will auto-jump away to (list of options)', maybe? Checkout time, and whatnot.

 

[aRJay]

One could actually increase the number of carriers in the system without changing the overall number of slots.
All you really need is the ability to cluster carriers in the same location. As in, you can jump a carrier to an existing carrier's location and they end up in a formation of some sort.

I'd personally love to see that, since it would let me jump my carrier into formation with other squad members.

As to how many carriers you can cluster in one location? No idea. That would be down to what the game code can get away with.

So how would the game distinguish between all these carriers at the same code address?

 

[Static-LG]

So how would the game distinguish between all these carriers at the same code address?

A valid question, though it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Each carrier has it's own ID, so from a game mechanics point of view nothing needs to change, but I'm guessing you are referring to the "physical" location of the carrier in space and how that is represented to the user in game?

Not gonna sugar coat it, as it is the game couldn't handle it in any graceful way: the issue stems more from the way in which carriers are currently handled on the contacts panel than potential issues with clustering carriers in a formation at a specific point; too much stuff in the contacts panel.

A potential solution would be to introduce a new Contact Type to the mix: much like unidentified signals can be resolved into different types upon scanning one could have a "Carrier Cluster (might want a better name for this)" signal that remains unresolved (as far as the contacts panel is concerned) under normal circumstances unless the player makes an effort to scan it down and see what's inside it.

Add to this the ability to automatically resolve Own Carrier + Squad Carrier + Friends Carriers and you now find your self in a situation where you only see the carriers you care about in the contact panel unless you make the effort to search every "Carrier Cluster" contact in the sector.

Also, Bookmarks are always available and should work as they currently do.
I'd honestly welcome this change even if no slots are ever made available: there are only so many carriers an average player actually cares about

 

[aRJay]

A valid question, though it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Each carrier has it's own ID, so from a game mechanics point of view nothing needs to change, but I'm guessing you are referring to the "physical" location of the carrier in space and how that is represented to the user in game?

Not gonna sugar coat it, as it is the game couldn't handle it in any graceful way: the issue stems more from the way in which carriers are currently handled on the contacts panel than potential issues with clustering carriers in a formation at a specific point; too much stuff in the contacts panel.

A potential solution would be to introduce a new Contact Type to the mix: much like unidentified signals can be resolved into different types upon scanning one could have a "Carrier Cluster (might want a better name for this)" signal that remains unresolved (as far as the contacts panel is concerned) under normal circumstances unless the player makes an effort to scan it down and see what's inside it.

Add to this the ability to automatically resolve Own Carrier + Squad Carrier + Friends Carriers and you now find your self in a situation where you only see the carriers you care about in the contact panel unless you make the effort to search every "Carrier Cluster" contact in the sector.

Also, Bookmarks are always available and should work as they currently do.
I'd honestly welcome this change even if no slots are ever made available: there are only so many carriers an average player actually cares about

No I was thinking about the fact that every location in a system is a XXbit address which identifies where in the system that address is and what is there in terms of game objects.

 

[Static-LG]

No I was thinking about the fact that every location in a system is a XXbit address which identifies where in the system that address is and what is there in terms of game objects.

Which is were my suggestion of a new sensor contact type comes in: The "Carrier Cluster (really need a better name for this)" would become the Location within the system, and the Carriers would become sub-elements of that location.
Unless you own the carrier, or are friends with the person that does, you would not actually know what carriers are in the system at all unless you scanned down everything in the system.

Anything more specific than that is difficult to suggest, since I don't know what the existing code looks like; it's impossible for me to guesstimate how easy it would be to implement in the existing code-base.