Fleet Carriers (Lite)

[lenna]

Have you read my objection about the fact that carriers are the main incentive to join a squadron or plainly ignored it and just flat negating without any backup?

Your objection is absolutely irrelevant tripe - especially since "fleet carriers" are not a thing even now. The OP's proposal though would not actually make squadron carriers either irrelevant or moot since the squadron carriers would notionally would be less limited than the OP's personal carriers/mobile bases.

Further more, your counter proposal of being able to call ships to specific locations (notionally stations) would not achieve the same goals that the OP's does. There is no getting around that point.

 

[Trotsky2112]

Jeez, are you people in kindergarten? Grow up!

 

[Faded Glory]

The OP is not talking about that mess of an idea of FD's that is non-inclusive and ultimately a waste of time and resources IMO. Instead, they are actually referring to something that is more inclusive and will have utility for both PvP and PvE players regardless of the mode they choose to play.

Well, while I wouldn't necessarily be quite so scathing of what little we know about fleet carriers as yet, you are correct that I am not talking about an alternative, competing implementation, so thank you.

Perhaps I should have titled the thread differently, perhaps the mere mention of fleet carriers was enough for people to think that it's FD's version that I was talking about. It isn't, and that should have been abundantly clear from the OP and my other posts. And if FD create fleet carriers with the same limited scope as I have proposed then I doubt they will gain much traction.

To be clear (and I know you get this), I am simply suggesting a small mobile base / carrier - call it what you like, that an individual player can use to keep a small number of limited size ships close to them should they choose to roam the galaxy so loosening the grip of a 'home system' and opening up more of the game world. Simply giving players the ability to have a few different tools with which to play the game without needing to wait for ships to transfer to them.

My suggestion makes no mention of multi-crew, which obviously would be central to squadron carriers, it's much more aimed at a single lone player, although of course, as you rightly point out there would be no mode where they wouldn't be available, and no restrictions on how they be used (within their given capabilities) other than the player's imagination and goals.

 

[lenna]

My counter proposal was never meant to achieve the same goals, which I consider power creep.

My objection is not irrelevant exactly for the same reason: additional personal power beyond what we have access to now should be achievable with cooperative play. Since solo and open share the same save file, it is not possible to have personal carriers in solo and not in open. If that would be possible, I would then vouch for the idea.
I think future gameplay should not be based on gaining more power than our already uber builds.

Care to explain how exactly it would be considered "power creep"?

It is not as if the proposed new ship being asked for is going to be any more powerful in a direct sense than any of the current pilotable options (probably comparable to a hobbled T9/T10D for direct combat) and I do not believe it is intended to act as a rebuy respawn point either. As with SRVs and SLFs though, there could be an option to respawn on the proposed ship but at the cost of losing the ship you were in (losing the smaller ship and all fit kit in the process).

The ship being talked about would also be tied to the instance the player is in, no zone of control nor cross-instance/cross-platform presence - just another player ship that can carry a small number of other ships (notionally for personal use). The persistence could be based around the SLF/ship persistence mechanics as already described by the OP and may operate in almost exactly the same way (i.e. the available pad would only be active when the proposed ship is landed somewhere - notionally not at a base/station though).

While the OP does not propose a expansion-of the current multi-crew/wing mechanics there is some merit in allowing this however there could be "technical" complications that would effectively inhibit this being a viable option. That essentially means that while the proposed new ship may support multi-crew it would not make sense for the player to leave the proposed new ship nor dock with it while multi-crew is active and wing members (nor anyone else) would probably not be allowed to dock with it.

 

[Genie]

I get the power creep thing but if ED was real would there be a business and tactical demand for it? Of course there would - so I don't think it's a problem having a larger transport ship introduced for running smaller ships if it were integrated in the right way. It would be great for exploration and as much as it may reduce the desire for some team players, it could open up other team play. E.g. a team jumping on board a single carrier one of them owns and going (say) 500ly to explore something new / pirate an opposing faction might open things up.

My only slight issue is docking. Surely the ship would be too big? It would make sense for it to be able to park near a space station and just run your ships in / out from there.

 

[lenna]

i guess you are not aware of the fact that after the introduction of engineering combat has become a rock paper scissors game. Having different builds at your fingertips and the ability to switch quickly near the battlefield is power creep and another obstacle to cooperative play.

I am well aware of builds and how they work but ultimately what you are claiming is not really true, it would hardly be an "obstacle to cooperative play" - that is just plain unfounded rubbish.

your propositions to lessen the advantages to keep the utility are interesting though. I imagine the salt if one would have to lose ships though.

Except they would not have to lose it, they would have the option of losing it or respawning at an NPC facility.

 

[Nadreck]

i guess you are not aware of the fact that after the introduction of engineering combat has become a rock paper scissors game. Having different builds at your fingertips and the ability to switch quickly near the battlefield is power creep and another obstacle to cooperative play.

I'm not following this argument. If the ability to swap ships near the battlefield is "power creep", are you proposing that Fleet Carriers should not be implemented at all, and ship transfer to stations should be eliminated?

Or are you proposing that members of multiplayer squadrons should be given an unfair advantage over single players, over and above the advantage of being able to outnumber the enemy? Is the lack of this unfair advantage the "obstacle to cooperative play"?

Carriers should be available to all (or none, but plenty of us are looking forward to using them for many purposes other than PvP). I am reasonably confident that they will be. And if we get both Large-pad "pocket carriers" and megaship "fleet carriers", I'll have one of each and put a pocket carrier onto a fleet carrier!

 

[lenna]

Carriers should be available to all (or none, but plenty of us are looking forward to using them for many purposes other than PvP). I am reasonably confident that they will be. And if we get both Large-pad "pocket carriers" and megaship "fleet carriers", I'll have one of each and put a pocket carrier onto a fleet carrier!

Ultimately, the Fleet Carriers (if they are ever implemented) were going to be limited in actual number. I am guessing FD opted for the roving jurisdictional megaships than triggering the inevitable squabbling over the limited availability of a player/squadron owned/controlled asset. Perhaps they are investigating options that would remove the hard limit and make the squadron owned fleet carriers more accessible.

That being said, the pocket carriers proposed in this thread would ultimately serve a different purpose and may satisfy the desire for some to be able to have a temporary/mobile base (albeit with very limited features).

 

[lenna]

It is not rubbish, if I have assets myself and can do all alone why should I go looking for other players' support.

Squadron Carriers are expected (if they are ever implemented which is far from certain) to provide more/different functionality to the Personal Carrier ship(s) that the OP is proposing, hence your argument is rubbish.

This has been spelled out to you multiple times already - you are trying to equate a proverbial apple with a proverbial orange.

 

[Chaparral]

Shameless thread piracy incoming.

 

[lenna]

Carriers should remain a squadron exclusive, that is my preference. You and other people can tell me multiple times what you want to show as the only truth, but still you cannot change my preference. You can nerf it, but it is the same upgrade as the game is now. If the leak is right, space legs will change that and I might like it, but as it is now - nope.

I think you are too blinkered wrt your interpretation of what is being asked for - while the title says "Fleet Carrier" the actual proposal is not the same thing.

The Fleet Carriers that were being considered as a limited resource tied to squadrons would not be invalidated nor made useless by the "Pocket Carrier"/"Mobile Base" that is being proposed by this thread. FTR I have no interest in the Squadron exclusive Fleet Carrier proposals some have been pushing for and have been opposed to players being able to set up their own outposts or bases

However, the OP's proposal is more in-line with something that I believe would have benefit for multiple play styles and would functionally supplement/complement, not replace the larger Fleet Carriers. At the same time it would also enable FD to address the desire of some to be able to setup camp somewhere.

 

[Faded Glory]

Then you think wrong about my interpretation, because for me it is the inherent fact that the player has access to an alternative way of transporting multiple assets cheapens the appeal of joining a squadron, even if it is not EXACTLY the same thing.

This is one of the proposal that will lead to ED becoming like these recent survival games where you have your personal base and it starts to become a battle royale between solo players trying to expand their personal influence.

Because you know, ED is full of player who want MOARRR instead of cleverly thought gameplay mechanics.

No thank this kind of logistics should be handled by squadrons not by single players.

It's not really anything like the same thing IMO. The appeal of joining a squadron is because you have a shared goal with other players, and if that goal exists there'd be no need, let alone advantage in having your own transport.

You are of course entitled to your view of how the game is as opposed to how you feel it should be, but there are players out there who have no interest in joining squadrons or playing with others, and this suggestion is aimed squarely at them.

Although we don't have any details of how squadron carriers will be implemented, it's highly unlikely that they will be anything like as limited as my suggestion. And when you mention logistics which is the detailed coordination of an operation involving many people, facilities and supplies, then you are right, that should be (and presumably will be) handled by squadrons.

But this suggestion isn't that, not in any shape or form.

 

[Faded Glory]

Seems like that to me as it is a way to transport more than one ship at once more efficiently than the current system.

If it was possible to implement it in solo mode only then I would have no issue with it, but since it is not and everybody advocates that every mode has to have access to features, it doesn't really fit in how I believe the ship logistics should be handled in Elite.

No point in arguing over my personal preference so I think it is useless to keep repeating the same things.

Yes, it's a way to to transport a limited number of one players ships more efficiently than the current system, whereas squadron carriers will be able to transport a limited number of many players ships more efficiently than at present.

I agree (in principle) that every mode should have access to all features, and I don't really see that this suggestion would benefit squadrons at all - the whole point of squadron carriers being presumably that all members of a squadron are able to be present at a specific time and place, not to have to travel there separately, as they can now. So I can't really see this suggestion as being useful to them.

But you are right, I'm not trying to change your mind, and you are perfectly entitled to your personal preference.

 

[Nadreck]

My understanding is that presumably each squadron will be able to obtain one Fleet Carrier (and presumably by the members pooling their cash to buy it). Pocket Carriers should be independent of that, bought by individuals just like normal ships.

As for Fleet Carriers being "limited to squadrons": yes, I think everyone is anticipating that. I have my own squadron, with my 3 accounts as members.

 

[lenna]

My understanding is that presumably each squadron will be able to obtain one Fleet Carrier (and presumably by the members pooling their cash to buy it).

Nope - the squadron carriers were allegedly going to be limited in number. Not every squadron will be able to own one was the gist of what FD were hinting at. The backlash from that restriction is probably one of the main reasons the squadron carrier idea was shelved. If every squadron (regardless of size) is able to obtain one then that will no doubt irritate those campaigning for them to be exclusively focused around larger group gameplay but would be fairer and more inclusive as a result.

Ultimately though, the pocket carrier/mobile base proposed by this thread would be something else entirely.