Fleet Carriers and Squadrons, how to make them worth looking forward to.

What prompts me to make this post today is the not completely vanished hope to make the following upcoming content good and potentially revolutionary.

It is clear to all of us that we won’t get Fleet Carrier and Squadron mechanics tomorrow, and yet I have seen a lot of pessimism (understandably so) regarding the usefulness and potential fun-factor of these features.

In this post I will try to express my concerns and the concerns of fellow CMDRs when they hear about fleet carrier and will try to think of simple ways to make them fun and actually worth looking forward to.

First off, what do we know about Fleet Carrier/Squadrons?
According to the game wiki : “Squadrons are a new organizational structure for player groups [...] Players can create and run their own squadrons.”
From the way I see things, I will think of this upcoming mechanic as an improvement of the wing system we have, it will make it easier for large wing (player alliance) to operate within the game and pursue various objectives, I think most of the features will improve gameplay and even with the lack of details i’m not particularly worried about a potential “implementation failure”.

But then comes the Fleet Carriers, with very few info regarding this upcoming feature we can only speculate about the details but we do know the basic idea behind Fleet Carriers. From the game wiki : “The Fleet Carrier is a very large, dockable vessel that will act as a mobile base of operations for Squadrons [...] Squadrons can purchase their own fleet carrier. Squadron members can refuel, rearm, and respawn there.[1] It will be the first fully player-owned capital ship type.”
Now this is at the same time very exciting and very worrying, what am I/are we worried about?

Well, we/I am/are afraid of Fleet Carriers having very limited functionalities in the end. the concept of Fleet Carriers revolves around the squadron mechanics and it is easy to extrapolate and guess their purpose. Right now it looks like once a player-group has founded a squadron, they can then work towards the goal of obtaining a carrier and use it for logistic purposes i.e: the deployment of a fleet of ships controlled by the player of the squadron.

While there is nothing wrong with any of that (I’m sure it will be useful in some situations) I don’t think that Fleet Carrier should only serve logistic purposes. If Fleet Carrier are only restricted to the role of carrying Squadrons around and serving as a refuel/repair dock, there is little to no point in getting them in the first place. Only the repair/refuel function will be useful, the rest will be a fancy way of moving around the galaxy as a group.

Now i’m going to try and explore some ideas that could make the Fleet Carrier good and even revolutionary gameplay-wise.

-Fleet Carriers shouldn’t be exclusively tied to squadrons and player2player groups.
“Lone wolves” players should be able to get their hands on Fleet Carriers provided that they have the resources needed.
But why would a “solo” player want/use a Fleet Carrier?
Well, to put it simply, It would give hired npcs a whole new purpose besides sitting in SLF’s.
There are many scenarios I can think of. A solo player could for example have gathered a large amount of wealth and resources, hire 3-4 npcs and let them use the ships stored on/in the Carrier. It would be an additional cost but in some cases it would be interesting to be able to deploy your npcs in a conflict zone to turn the tide.

-Fleet Carriers shouldn’t be limited to combat purposes only.
Why? Well there are many exploration, trading and mining scenarios that would greatly benefit from the Fleet Carrier mechanics. For example, a player-group focused around trading could use the carrier as a large freighter for their operations, a player-group focused around mining or exploring could use the Carriers to deploy their squadron in an asteroid field and mine there or use it as a mobile base and go on an exploration trip thus benefiting from the repair/refuel function when being away from civilization.

-Fleet Carriers should be hard to obtain for groups or solo player and require commitment to get one.
What I mean by that is that these types of ship are custom ordered much like Imperial/Federation ships, you can’t just walk into a shipyard, dump 2 billions cr and fly away in your carrier. Fleet Carriers should require credits for assembly fees and resources as well, you could purchase them in only specific location and you would have to provide a large amount of raw resources to complete the order, the player(s) would have to gather the resources and once that is done, they can pay the shipyard to start the order.

Should there be different sizes for carriers? The short answer is yes. A small wing or solo player would ideally be able to purchase a small fleet carrier that would only be able to carry a very restricted number of ships (like two medium and two small ships for the sake of perspectives) and a large group with dedicated members would be able to afford a large carrier to move large ships around.

We don’t know yet if there will be such a thing as Carrier outfitting but that would diversify their role and would prove useful/interesting.

All of these suggestions are based on speculations about what frontier intends to do and on the feedback I've seen on forums/reddit/in game, I tried to be as concise as possible.

Feel free to agree or disagree with the points above and make your own suggestions, I really hope Fleet Carriers can be a good thing and I urge frontier to take all the time they want to think the concept through before implementing it.

Good day commanders o7.
 
In No Man's Sky, solo player can own a carrier (or freighter) : it is mainly a mobile base, there are different type of ship, and price range.

It is a good addition and HG made some updates, there are now options given to the player : make it jump, scan economical data, built in a base, and so on.

FD would consider this stuff and I hope they will find a balanced way to offer people ways to have fun with them.
Solo, group and open players.

They all deserve these content. And we need NPC crew and wingmen.
 
I think they should be able to jump whenever the group wants to move them, but require bringing it Hydrogen Fuel and/or whatever other commodities they see fit. That way you can jump at any time but larger groups have more "pedal power".
 
Frontier have probably already thought about most of the details... I wonder if they'd be willing to share their notes to get some feedback a bit like they did with 'Crime and Punishment'.

Why not think about what you can't do right now in the game, but could with fleet carriers?

When in deep space far from the bubble
- Sell exploration data (but sacrificing the potential for reputation gain)
- Rearm and repair
- Move when offline (someone else could command the carrier to move when you're offline, you get a ride to wherever!)
- Level 4 scan (lore is that it releases probes that scan planet in even more detail, in-game it just makes a funny noise)

In combat
- Hand in bounties etc
- rearm / repair
notes: Enemy players can attack your carrier forcing it to jump. If they find it (beacon can be private/squadron/public).

I don't think carriers should be used as assault vehicles. This could be prevented by making them only have two move actions:
- Jump to system
- Jump to navigational item within system (planets / stations)
I.e. there is no super-cruise for carriers and the carrier becomes its own nav object that players can low-wake to.

Trade
- Hoard cargo! ... Profit!

General
- Customisation provides players with an output for creativity.
 
My top reasons that carriers should be individually owned instead of owned by a player group:

6-Players quit games. Creating a hierarchy of ownership is a PITA and trouble that FDev doesn't need to waste resources on.

5-Because most players aren't part of a player group in the first place.

4-Allowing individually owned carriers means that huge groups, such as the Fuel Rats, can have multiple carriers to use rather than being limited to one.

3-FDev will have to decide what constitutes a "squadron" which means they need to define what constitutes a "player". I currently have three CMDRs and, on the PS4, I can create as many CMDRs as I want. Need five players to be a "squadron"? No problem. Making them individually owned just removes another way players can "cheat".

2-Limiting the carriers to groups means that only the players who control a player group gets the fun of controlling a carrier. The rest of the players get nothing, despite working to purchase it.

1-Because the more fleet carriers in the galaxy, the more carrier cosmetics that Frontier can sell. ($$$$$$!!!)
 
Part of me wants to be excited with carriers, but based on trends and Frontier development patterns, I believe the real feature is going to be squadron management and communication facilities (ie: new social user interfaces and network code backend), with carriers taking more of a backseat. I see carriers being there more for presentation and for personal accomplishment (at least for those who started the squadron), but not serving any real grand purpose. Given the peer-to-peer network topology as well as inter-galactic traveling times, I can't see them being used as social gathering hubs, unless a squadron is just throwing a simple do-nothing party where members playing in multiple instances come to just horse around.

As mentioned, it's the squadron management that's going to be the defining factor in that feature update. It's also going to be interesting to see how Frontier solves their in-game communication problems. How are they going to help players connect? Are they going to assume players will just have to rely on 3rd party websites to find and register with squadrons (similar to private groups), or will they support in-game UI to search, view, register, and join squadrons? And will squadrons simply extend on private groups to allow like-minded pilots to quickly find other wing mates to play with, or will they offer gameplay mechanics that actually require a squadron? It will be interesting to see how far Frontier wants to take this, or how far they can take it with a finite time and budget.
 
ive been thinking of a customizable interior on some of the huge carrier so that ships could land and the pads would be on rails and could move around inside or outside the carrier...
 
In No Man's Sky, solo player can own a carrier (or freighter) : it is mainly a mobile base, there are different type of ship, and price range.

It is a good addition and HG made some updates, there are now options given to the player : make it jump, scan economical data, built in a base, and so on.

FD would consider this stuff and I hope they will find a balanced way to offer people ways to have fun with them.
Solo, group and open players.

They all deserve these content. And we need NPC crew and wingmen.

If all an Elite Dangerous carrier did was let me dock, repair ship integrity, offload resources and cargo, and transmit exploration data back to the bubble so I can get credit for my 40,000+ly discoveries without having to trundle back to somewhere, I'd be over the moon and it would be a primary playtime driver like NMS freighters was. If the carriers were anything close to those freighters (multi-ship storage, extended warp capacity, buildable base, NPCs that visit with trade items loaded), I'd buy whatever Frontier sold me for 'em and probably get a good 500 hours or so of enjoyment just out of that.

Worked on NMS anyway. LOVE my spacebarge. Got one of the ones that looks like an Imperial destroyer.
 
I'd second the "NPC crew wingmen" suggestion. Allowing NPCs to take on player roles would open up the mechanic to pretty much all except the most hardcore lone wolves, which in turn would lead to a much larger take up of the system and so encourage further development of it.
 
I'd rather NPC's were removed altogether, or made much more difficult.

Let's hope the squadron ships turn out cool though.
 
Most of the updates of Elite Dangerous have been mainly focused on multiplayer. I really hope to see soon something for single player too

That's the beauty of having NPCs be able to join wings and squadrons though, suddenly there would be no such thing as "multiplayer" content, only "Lone Wolf" and "Squadron/Wing" content as players in solo can still use all the content. Both sides win out, as solo players get more content, while the shared development and motivation to create solo and multiplayer content (as the distinction would become meaningless with sufficiently advanced NPCs) would result in more content for wings of human players.
 
That's the beauty of having NPCs be able to join wings and squadrons though, suddenly there would be no such thing as "multiplayer" content, only "Lone Wolf" and "Squadron/Wing" content as players in solo can still use all the content. Both sides win out, as solo players get more content, while the shared development and motivation to create solo and multiplayer content (as the distinction would become meaningless with sufficiently advanced NPCs) would result in more content for wings of human players.

'Lone Wolf' doesn't mean what you think it means ;)

You're assuming that players WANT to fly around dragging a bunch of NPCs with them.
If people want to hire them, that's fine, go ahead, but gating 'Lone Wolf' players out of content by making it require an NPC wing would be a step in the wrong direction.
 
'Lone Wolf' doesn't mean what you think it means ;)

You're assuming that players WANT to fly around dragging a bunch of NPCs with them.
If people want to hire them, that's fine, go ahead, but gating 'Lone Wolf' players out of content by making it require an NPC wing would be a step in the wrong direction.

I suspect you may have misread my post, I was using the definition of Lone Wolf players as those that would refuse to cooperate with any other shipborne entity, not just those that prefer not to engage with other human players.

Lone Wolves would travel around all by their lonesome selves rather than engage with others, human or NPC.

Meanwhile the Mutliplayer crowd would effectively merge with the NPC hiring crowd as they would behave in a similar manner in game - both would be eyeing up the larger scale missions and content that requires multiple ships to do with any degree of efficiency. Wing missions would no longer require multiple human players to reasonably complete, but would instead become fully available for those who are willing to work with NPCs. Players who play in solo wouldn't be locked out of content any more.
 
I suspect you may have misread my post, I was using the definition of Lone Wolf players as those that would refuse to cooperate with any other shipborne entity, not just those that prefer not to engage with other human players.

Lone Wolves would travel around all by their lonesome selves rather than engage with others, human or NPC.

Meanwhile the Mutliplayer crowd would effectively merge with the NPC hiring crowd as they would behave in a similar manner in game - both would be eyeing up the larger scale missions and content that requires multiple ships to do with any degree of efficiency. Wing missions would no longer require multiple human players to reasonably complete, but would instead become fully available for those who are willing to work with NPCs. Players who play in solo wouldn't be locked out of content any more.

It's this section that confused me:

"...while the shared development and motivation to create solo and multiplayer content (as the distinction would become meaningless with sufficiently advanced NPCs) would result in more content for wings of human players."

particularly the area highlighted in orange.
The implication (that I took from it) is that all content is multiplayer and that multiplayer means either 'player + player' or 'player + NPC'.
There should still be content that is geared to 'player + nothing' since that is (should be) a viable way to play the game.

If that was my misinterpretation then I apologize :)

 
Fleet Carriers and Squadrons, how to make them worth looking forward to.

As this is another multiplayer-only addition to the game, I sadly have no way to look forward to this at all.
It will add nothing for me, just like Wings, CQC, and multiplayer crews.

I very much want a cool npc crew system added to the game (like I proposed elsewhere).
I would also like to be able to wing up with npc.

Currently I do not care for a single player implementation of Fleet carriers, or Squadrons.
This might change if it offer interesting gameplay, but I doubt this will be the case in a single player setting.
 
Lone Wolves would travel around all by their lonesome selves rather than engage with others, human or NPC.

I consider myself to be a lone wolf, but I would not mind being able to have npc ship crew, but I do want them to be professional and silent. No pointless blabbering and irritating chatter.
I would prefer to be able to buy automatons/robots as crew.
 
Top Bottom