If we can have an ARX Christmas special paint job for the remote refuel button, it's fine.
Fleet Carrier FAQ
- Thread starter Factabulous
- Start date
You expressed a desire in this post for people to explain their reasons for wanting a change, and saying that nobody had done so yet (not sure if that's the case, seems a little hard to believe nobody would have done so after well over 400 posts).
I did so in the post quoted here, but you didn't comment yet on my reasons - do you think they are bogus?
Because you're are away from it, and want to move it, and the main tank is near to empty and you can't refuel it with your stock of tritium.I’m sorry did I not give you the personal attention that you clearly require. I mean, I’ve been so active on this thread since then, it must have been some kind of personal slight.
And yeah, it is a bit. It’s a total contrivance.
Why on earth would you want to move your carrier half way across the galaxy before joining it? That’s not keeping it close! In a large chunk of the galaxy it would be more expedient to head to a station in an emergency than head to your hypothetical carrier.
And don't reply me the funny thing about the fuel barge. I was a merchant seaman, I see a lot of fuel barge, I never see the owner of a cargo vessel travelling across the planet to refuel his cargo with a fuel barge.
Uh, excuse me. But don't you think you've answered your own question?
The tritium in the FC warehouse is just cargo, it is no fuel its cargo (as with cargo barges at sea). This cargo can only be transferred to another cargo bay of the ship and that's it.
Just do not ask me how the cargo (tritium) from the cargo compartment of the ship gets into the fuel tank of the FC, I think it's just a convention of the game, which in the ED a lot.
If you can transfer the tritium as a cargo from a ship cargo bay to a fleet carrier depot, if the ship is docked at the fleet carrier, it's obvious that the same cargo transfer system can do the same thing beetween the fleet carrier cargo bay and tritium depot of the same fleet carrier. And this without the multi billonnaire owner of this expensive fleet carrier need to travel accross thousand ly and use a fuel barge do doing that.
I don't understand why people try to justify something that is obviously absurd to any people have a minimun of common sens. The only reason I found about that, is the fear of some player that can break the game with automated fleet carrier and only that.
Fear I think was not justified. Player want to automate ther FC just need to have a second account to doing that, and it's just a limitation that can't block him to automate all the other thing can be done remotly with a fleet carrier.
Last edited:
I know what you mean.
I wrote this to show you why ships at sea are not refueled from cargo fuel barges.
I'm always in favor of more variety in the game, especially if it doesn't interfere with other players.
Personally, I would remove this service (tritium refueling) from the FC, why is it necessary? What is the extra space in me FC? Fuel is immediately taken from the cargo bay of the FC and that's it. You dump fuel there, others sell you fuel. The usual logic and nothing else.
P.S.For those who don't quite get my point, it just might be an additional fuel service that is put in as a service on the FC. They will charge you for each transfer of fuel from the cargo bay to the FC fuel tank, essentially just raising the price of each jump.
Last edited:
As stated earlier, it's not a matter of common sense, it's the mechanic FDEV decided upon to prevent players fully automating their Fleet Carriers. It's a game, it doesn't have to follow the rules of commons sense, it just has to follow the rules that FDEV decide they want to implement, and this is one of them. There's no justification needed, you purchased a game, there are rules in the game you don't like, your problem, FDEV aren't required to adjust the rules to suit a few players desires.
I have suggested previously that they could add additional fuel tanks, like you can on your ship, then someone who wants to move their carrier 40kly away could without using cargo. That would actually be logical, more realistic and internally coherent.
Yeah, but how far away are you ever going to be? If you don’t keep it near, why are you bringing it?
I’ve already agreed in another thread that I have no issue with removing the need to switch ships, although I doubt think that it should be available on the remote panel.
So you already know the difference between fuel and cargo then.
And you’ll also be aware of the difference between chartering and owning.
I can think of a few edge case when it would be a genuinely useful feature, but everything I can think of is mitigated by the 7Ps.
But I am genuinely interested is why people think they need to refuel remotely.
Edit: I’ve just noticed this conversation is happening in the FAQ thread, maybe it should be taken to one of the other threads on the actual topic so people who need this thread can actually use it?
Because I was confronted with the case of I need to refuel my FC and I was away from it with a small ship and a passager mission. And can't doing that despite the fact I had 6000t of tritium in the cargo space of the FC. I find this limitation absurd.
But I agree with the fact that those fleet carrier are mostly useless expensive moving big chest just gamedesigned to be something where we can put our stuff and only that and it's every time difficult to justify doing something usefull with those.
Yes i notice this too. And I think this is an endless discussion too. I can live without this feature (and without Fleet Carrier too) for doing 99% of my gameplay in the game. It's just a commoditie. I close this discussion here for my part.
O7 and fly safe.
That's irrelevant, this is the game mechanic FDEV chose to create, your bad planning doesn't mean FDEV need to change their entire game around just to suit you, I don't really get the problem. You knew what the mechanic was before you embarked on your little venture, the limitation may be absurd to you, but it is obviously necessary for FDEV. You knew, you went and did what you did anyway, now you want to change the game, that's not how games work.
LOL, baffled by the snippy tone. You have not posted in this thread since then, but you replied multiple times yesterday to a thread on precisely this topic, so I thought you may have missed my post.I’m sorry did I not give you the personal attention that you clearly require. I mean, I’ve been so active on this thread since then, it must have been some kind of personal slight.
I had taken your original request as a sincere desire to understand the motivation of players seeking this change. Thus I gave you mine, in the hope of helping you to understand why it makes a difference to me. So yeah, of course I hoped for some direct feedback. I gave you what I believe was a polite nudge - did you interpret it differently?
Some other posters were not engaging much with the logic of the request, but instead just saying words to the effect of "FD want it this way, so don't ask for changes".
I'm very curious btw about whether FD have ever stated a rationale for this design decision.
Well, the answer to this question (which I've put in bold) is quite literally in my post. (Btw, I have no idea why you say "That’s not keeping it close!" because I don't recall ever saying anything related to that.)
Here are the two key points most relevant to your question (freeing up a shedload of time, and having my fleet + guaranteed local functionality):
Some behaviours (both deliberate FD choices and accidental "features") in the game do get changed because players express unhappiness.
Why is this not a valid discussion to have?
Oh I agree there are plenty of things that have changed, but the reason for the change in this case is simply because a person is unhappy due to their bad planning, not any problem associated with the way the feature works. I mean there are plenty of features in other games that were inconvenient for me, but that doesn't mean they were bad designs or features. Demonstrate how this is a bad design or feature without actually referencing the "real world" or the bad planning of players. Unhappiness is usually a valid reason to act when a feature causes problems for a lot of players and can impact player retention, not because one player made a bad decision or planning choice. Simply expressing that you want it to work in a different way isn't a relevant argument.
Oh OK, you meant the specifics of the instance quoted by @CMDR Big Pete.
I was referring to the wider discussion about the oddness of how carrier refuelling works. Going by the forum activity on the topic over the last few years, I think it's fair to say that quite a lot of players would like to see that changed.
Are you aware of any public statement that FD have ever made about this?
Yeah that was the specific instance I was referring to, as to how many want it changed, I'm not speculating on majority or minority, that's a dead end line of thought really, the forum never has more than a minority of players on it at any one time, what the rest who never come here think I don't know, it's likely the majority just accept it being what it is, there's a small minority who want it changed, for some of them it may be the reason they came to the forum, and small minority who disagree with it being changed. Just for the record, the people who don't agree were called brain dead by one of the people who wanted it changed, that's not where we should be going with this at all!
As for statement, can't recall anything immediately, I could to go back and rewatch the live streams and all that stuff to try and find anything but don't really have time at the moment, but keep in mind they did increase the actual number of jump we could do with a full fuel tank I think several times, so it seems they were aware of the issue of refueling and the distance the FC could travel before needing to be refueled as expressed by the community at the time of the beta, and the response was to decrease the amount of Tritium required to jump, not make it easier to remotely refill the fuel tank.
Yeah this makes me realise that I don't actually know which medium(s) FD really listen to when gauging how broken a game mechanic is perceived to be. (They've for sure made plenty of changes based on feedback over the years.) It's probably a combination of various places, I guess. The forum is presumably one such place though...
And of course it goes without saying that calling people brain dead isn't acceptable (not even compliant with forum rules).
Ahh yes, I had forgotten that they had tweaked anything at all on the carrier jumping stuff.
Yes they need to change their entire game just for add a button for using tritium stock for refueling the fleet carrier.
Fleet carrier that have praticly no gameplay impact maybe for selling some goods in any gameplay at all. There are just a place for stocking stuff. And only that.
Bah, this is a non sense discussion and as I say, I have no problem to continue to play without these big and eventually movable personnal chest.
And if this is as you say just an arbitrary gamerule, FDEV just need to reference this as an arbitrary gamerule somewhere. That can be more profitable for everyone than be an infinite subject of conflictual discussions.
And this is definitely my last message on this particular subject.
PS : my fleet carrier is the [LPV] Charles Claden. Is named in honor to a famous but mostly unknown sea man, who was the commander of the famous ocean tug Abeille Flandre.
CMDR Big_PETE - fleet carrier | Elite:Dangerous | INARA
The companion site for Elite:Dangerous with the game database, market data, trade routes, outfitting, engineers, blueprints, crafting, Thargoid war, squadrons, logbooks, galleries, galaxy information and much more...
inara.cz
Charles Claden — Wikipédia
Abeille Flandre - Wikipedia
Last edited:
They are more a tool to use for mining, CGs etc, mainly a base for carting your fleet around, where they shine is exploration.
O7
IIRC someone (Ned Stark?) said that everything before "but" is .
I would put after "but" they are invaluable storage facilities.