Fleet Carrier Transponder Module - Required to be visible on the System Map.

[DemiserofD]

Pretty much everyone is annoyed by the clogging up of systems and system maps by fleet carriers. This even includes fleet carrier owners, who often find themselves locked out of high-traffic systems.

At the same time, the hard limit on fleet carriers in a system doesn't make much sense/have much justification.

So I'd like to propose an alternative system.

---

Transponder Module

Each Carrier gets a Transponder Module as a default module. All this module does is broadcast a transponder signal that announces its location to those in the system. If this module is disabled, the carrier becomes completely invisible, and in fact doesn't actually exist in the system for anyone but the owner, hopefully reducing lag.

There is a limit to the number of bands available on the transponder. The lowest-energy bands are taken first, and each higher band takes exponentially more power to maintain. If all bands have been taken, then you can't activate your transponder module - but you can still jump your carrier to and from the system. Your carrier just won't be visible.

The cost to have your transponder active costs 50k for the first carrier in the system, and increases by 50% for each carrier after that. So the first carrier in the system costs 50k, and will always cost 50k as long as they keep their carrier active in that system. The next one will cost 75k, and so on and so forth.

1	50k
2	75k
3	112k
4	168k
5	253k
...
20	110,000,000

This way, systems with small numbers of carriers can feel alright keeping them on display, while systems with large numbers of carriers will be incentivized to keep their transponder disabled.

Most players don't substantially buy or sell things, so most players would leave their FCs invisible, while players will know any carriers they DO see are probably useful, because the player has an economic incentive to ensure they are.

This would also solve the fleet carrier limit in systems. Rather than a bizarre phlebotinum hard cap on the number of carriers in a system, it's instead a limit on transponder wavelength; you can't broadcast on the same signal as another carrier, so only a certain number of carriers can be visible in a system, but any number of carriers can actually be there. The only way to jump into a fleet carrier instance when it's not visible is via wing navlock.

Instantly, you solve clogged systems, spammed system maps, and lag, while actually helping FC owners at the same time.

All with the power of economics!

 

[varonica]

Pretty much everyone is annoyed by the clogging up of systems and system maps by fleet carriers. This even includes fleet carrier owners, who often find themselves locked out of high-traffic systems.

At the same time, the hard limit on fleet carriers in a system doesn't make much sense/have much justification.

So I'd like to propose an alternative system.

I suspect there are many problems in the way you want to implement this that won't fit in with the way Elite Dangerous works. For a start having them hidden won't remove blocks for FC's entering systems because that block is based on the number of ID64's available per system and you can't change that with magic. They would still take up orbital slots because as already mentioned they have their own ID64 and must be located on the system map for that ID64 to work with the master database. There may be a way of making them invisible, but they will still be there taking up space and now people would be blocked from entering system or taking up an orbit around a planet with no idea why.

This would also solve the fleet carrier limit in systems. Rather than a bizarre phlebotinum hard cap on the number of carriers in a system,

That's bizarre and complete rubbish. There's a hard cap on the number of FC's because there's is actually a hard cap on the number of FC's that can be in a system. That's based on the number of ID64's available for representing systems. Making suggestions while at the same time having no idea how the actual system works is not a good idea.

 

[DemiserofD]

I suspect there are many problems in the way you want to implement this that won't fit in with the way Elite Dangerous works. For a start having them hidden won't remove blocks for FC's entering systems because that block is based on the number of ID64's available per system and you can't change that with magic. They would still take up orbital slots because as already mentioned they have their own ID64 and must be located on the system map for that ID64 to work with the master database. There may be a way of making them invisible, but they will still be there taking up space and now people would be blocked from entering system or taking up an orbit around a planet with no idea why.



That's bizarre and complete rubbish. There's a hard cap on the number of FC's because there's is actually a hard cap on the number of FC's that can be in a system. That's based on the number of ID64's available for representing systems. Making suggestions while at the same time having no idea how the actual system works is not a good idea.

The data wouldn't need to be stored in the system at all. You just have it work like a signal source, which are all loaded independently by each player, and then players can only jump into another player's signal source via wing lock.

All the mechanics for this already exist.

In any case, complaining that the code for something doesn't currently exist is about the lowest possible level of criticism. Code can be written, and with certain limitations removed, can be done in much easier ways than when limited by current requirements.

Do you have anything to say about the actual idea, other than 'writing new code is impossible'?

 

[Andro]

I like seeing ideas like this. Not sure if I agree with the implementation, I think if this transponder had to be re-enabled after each jump to show up to the public, that would majorly cut down on the spam. Carriers set to private/friends/squadron docking only shouldn't have their signals show up to anyone but those people.

That coupled with Carrier groups for the system map would fix a lot of my problems with the update.

Spoiler: Carrier Groups

 

[GoldenSilver484]

I like seeing ideas like this. Not sure if I agree with the implementation, I think if this transponder had to be re-enabled after each jump to show up to the public, that would majorly cut down on the spam. Carriers set to private/friends/squadron docking only shouldn't have their signals show up to anyone but those people.

That coupled with Carrier groups for the system map would fix a lot of my problems with the update.

Spoiler: Carrier Groups

View attachment 213969

Maybe have a number instead of the plus sign, add a new filter on the nav panel for bookmarked carriers and that's all FD would need to do, for the UI anyways.

Pretty much everyone is annoyed by the clogging up of systems and system maps by fleet carriers. This even includes fleet carrier owners, who often find themselves locked out of high-traffic systems.

At the same time, the hard limit on fleet carriers in a system doesn't make much sense/have much justification.

So I'd like to propose an alternative system.

---

Transponder Module

Each Carrier gets a Transponder Module as a default module. All this module does is broadcast a transponder signal that announces its location to those in the system. If this module is disabled, the carrier becomes completely invisible, and in fact doesn't actually exist in the system for anyone but the owner, hopefully reducing lag.

There is a limit to the number of bands available on the transponder. The lowest-energy bands are taken first, and each higher band takes exponentially more power to maintain. If all bands have been taken, then you can't activate your transponder module - but you can still jump your carrier to and from the system. Your carrier just won't be visible.

The cost to have your transponder active costs 50k for the first carrier in the system, and increases by 50% for each carrier after that. So the first carrier in the system costs 50k, and will always cost 50k as long as they keep their carrier active in that system. The next one will cost 75k, and so on and so forth.

1	50k
2	75k
3	112k
4	168k
5	253k
...
20	110,000,000

This way, systems with small numbers of carriers can feel alright keeping them on display, while systems with large numbers of carriers will be incentivized to keep their transponder disabled.

Most players don't substantially buy or sell things, so most players would leave their FCs invisible, while players will know any carriers they DO see are probably useful, because the player has an economic incentive to ensure they are.

This would also solve the fleet carrier limit in systems. Rather than a bizarre phlebotinum hard cap on the number of carriers in a system, it's instead a limit on transponder wavelength; you can't broadcast on the same signal as another carrier, so only a certain number of carriers can be visible in a system, but any number of carriers can actually be there. The only way to jump into a fleet carrier instance when it's not visible is via wing navlock.

Instantly, you solve clogged systems, spammed system maps, and lag, while actually helping FC owners at the same time.

All with the power of economics!

As a FC owner, I'm not annoyed by the lack of FC slots in high-interest systems.

I am annoyed by every post that suggests paying an exponential fee based on how many FCs are in system will solve issues, when FD needs to fix whatever the underlying issues are, not add disincentives (a new module that is little more than a disguised berthing fee included) to mask them.

They're (at minimum) several hundred kilometers from everything else (regardless of what they're orbiting) and space is big, so they aren't navigational hazards.
Why should a FC need to pay a fee just because they happen to be next to that desolate icy body 4683ls from the star and why should they ever need to pay 110 million credits for that?
It's rubbish.

 

[DemiserofD]

Maybe have a number instead of the plus sign, add a new filter on the nav panel for bookmarked carriers and that's all FD would need to do, for the UI anyways.



As a FC owner, I'm not annoyed by the lack of FC slots in high-interest systems.

I am annoyed by every post that suggests paying an exponential fee based on how many FCs are in system will solve issues, when FD needs to fix whatever the underlying issues are, not add disincentives (a new module that is little more than a disguised berthing fee included) to mask them.

They're (at minimum) several hundred kilometers from everything else (regardless of what they're orbiting) and space is big, so they aren't navigational hazards.
Why should a FC need to pay a fee just because they happen to be next to that desolate icy body 4683ls from the star and why should they ever need to pay 110 million credits for that?
It's rubbish.

It's mostly a matter of utility.

A system with 50 carriers in it is never going to be practical to discover what you're looking for. Sure, you could add all sorts of filters and stuff to find exactly what you need, but that just gets exorbitantly complicated. And the fact of the matter is, 9/10ths of fleet carriers aren't worth having visible to everyone.

So you need a system where only the worthwhile carriers are shown, and what better way to achieve that than financial incentive? Players who think they can make money make their carriers visible, everyone else doesn't, the problem solves itself via economics.

Carriers buying mining stuff will automatically rotate as they need to drop off their goods. Carriers in a player's home system will default to the player who was there first. Everything is simple and elegant and balances itself automatically.

Pragmatically, the only time you'd be looking at paying 110m is if the system is nearly full and the ideal state is for carriers to be very quickly cycling through, but that's also something you absolutely want; having systems clogged with the same 20 carriers is a bad thing for everyone but those lucky first 20.

 

[Screemonster]

Maybe have a number instead of the plus sign, add a new filter on the nav panel for bookmarked carriers and that's all FD would need to do, for the UI anyways.



As a FC owner, I'm not annoyed by the lack of FC slots in high-interest systems.

I am annoyed by every post that suggests paying an exponential fee based on how many FCs are in system will solve issues, when FD needs to fix whatever the underlying issues are, not add disincentives (a new module that is little more than a disguised berthing fee included) to mask them.

They're (at minimum) several hundred kilometers from everything else (regardless of what they're orbiting) and space is big, so they aren't navigational hazards.
Why should a FC need to pay a fee just because they happen to be next to that desolate icy body 4683ls from the star and why should they ever need to pay 110 million credits for that?
It's rubbish.

who the hell are they even paying credits to in an uninhabited system anyway

 

[Winterwalker]

I think there's the seed of an interesting idea here.

 

[DemiserofD]

who the hell are they even paying credits to in an uninhabited system anyway

It's not paying people, it's paying for power generation. The higher the band, the more power required, the higher the upkeep for the carrier.

Same justification for Universal Cartographics probably. Gotta pay for the ansible to connect to the central servers, after all.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Could you reverse the charge / make it flat so everyone pays the same (to make it a bit fairer)? So that in lore heavy / popular systems based on BGS criteria the 'fee' is added to your upkeep expenses? If the fee is based primarily on population it would make use of the 'empty' adjacent systems that people tend to forget. Exploration would not be affected either (since is empty / devoid of humans).

 

[DemiserofD]

Could you reverse the charge / make it flat so everyone pays the same (to make it a bit fairer)? So that in lore heavy / popular systems based on BGS criteria the 'fee' is added to your upkeep expenses? If the fee is based primarily on population it would make use of the 'empty' adjacent systems that people tend to forget. Exploration would not be affected either (since is empty / devoid of humans).

I'm concerned about griefing. I don't want someone leaving their carrier selling something in an empty system, have a bunch of players jump in and force his carrier to be decommissioned because it runs out of money.

Pragmatically speaking, if you're jumping an active carrier into a busy system, you should either be planning to move it back out immediately once you complete your objective, or you shouldn't be making it visible in the first place.

Does this potentially bias towards the first players in the system? Yes, but to a much lesser degree than presently, and I find this an acceptable sacrifice for the sake of not unduly inconveniencing the players who were minding their own business before being run down by the community goal equivalent of a freight train.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm concerned about griefing. I don't want someone leaving their carrier selling something in an empty system, have a bunch of players jump in and force his carrier to be decommissioned because it runs out of money.

Does this actually happen in the game? I don't own an FC but can you transfer money remotely?

 

[GoldenSilver484]

Does this actually happen in the game? I don't own an FC but can you transfer money remotely?

It doesn't happen since there is, currently, only two ways to affect the finances of someone else's FC.
1. Buying from (adds to FC "bank") or selling to (the FC owner has to allocate the required credits up front but is able to cancel at any time with zero penalty) to the market or warehouse.
2. Using UC or the redemption office costs 25% of the transaction value, half of which (12.5% of the full transaction) goes to the FC bank.

A FC owner can remotely withdraw or deposit credits from their personal credits into the FC bank at any time from anywhere in the galaxy.

 

[DemiserofD]

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

What I meant was, IF all carriers shared the fee equally, then a large, well-funded group of carrier owners could all jump their carriers into a system with a few already there, drive up the upkeep so much the afk carriers go bankrupt, and then move on to the next one.

It wouldn't be cost effective or kind, but griefers are typically neither of these things.

With my suggestion, you would know immediately what your upkeep costs will be, and those won't change, no matter what anyone else does, thereby preventing any potential for griefing in this manner.

 

[Chaparral]

I suspect there are many problems in the way you want to implement this that won't fit in with the way Elite Dangerous works. For a start having them hidden won't remove blocks for FC's entering systems because that block is based on the number of ID64's available per system and you can't change that with magic. They would still take up orbital slots because as already mentioned they have their own ID64 and must be located on the system map for that ID64 to work with the master database. There may be a way of making them invisible, but they will still be there taking up space and now people would be blocked from entering system or taking up an orbit around a planet with no idea why.



That's bizarre and complete rubbish. There's a hard cap on the number of FC's because there's is actually a hard cap on the number of FC's that can be in a system. That's based on the number of ID64's available for representing systems. Making suggestions while at the same time having no idea how the actual system works is not a good idea.

Varonica - is there a cap on the number of signal sources in a system? Just curious.

 

[Tryst]

I agree with the transponder module idea.

It should also be what sparks the upkeep costs, otherwise it's just a personal ship that despawns when you are offline and requires no upkeep while you are offline.

I play almost exclusively in solo mode with group mode back when my friends used to play. Having upkeep costs while I am offline effectively prevents me owning a FC since I don't have much time to play and all the time I do have would be spent grinding credits for upkeep.

 

[Sole Trader]

Pretty much everyone is annoyed by the clogging up of systems and system maps by fleet carriers. This even includes fleet carrier owners, who often find themselves locked out of high-traffic systems.

I agree with this statement, but wouldn't it be simpler to just have a Fleet Carrier filter added to to the System Map.

 

[DemiserofD]

I agree with this statement, but wouldn't it be simpler to just have a Fleet Carrier filter added to to the System Map.

I figure, why not kill three birds with one stone?

Just hiding all of them only hides the problems!

 

[Captain Willard]

I always have them turned off except when I'm heading to mine.
I'd prefer FD just lower the number of FC's in system to alleviate some problems.

 

[Sole Trader]

I figure, why not kill three birds with one stone?

Just hiding all of them only hides the problems!

From my point of view just uncluttering the system map would serve a useful purpose and adding a filter will solve this issue. I see where you are coming from, but I just can't see FD putting their resources into it, plus it would add a lot more code for something that isn't broken and others don't have a problem with it anyway.