Patch Notes Fleet Carriers Update - Patch 4 Patch Notes

Somebody pay to orbit Moon 2-3 times and back 200 mill usd. That does not mean it is cheap. It means somebody have extra free money. That does not mean they can orbit Moon once a week for the rest too. And we need carrier for everyday use.
I'm trying to parse your non-sequitirs with only vague success. You seem to think using my carrier every day is costing me creds -- actually I am earning them. The 500+M cred I mention is after all carrier expenses, which are paid exclusively by exploration alone. The minerals in my hold are solely for financing the party I plan upon return to so-called civilization, but that's a ways down the road.
 
I'm trying to parse your non-sequitirs with only vague success. You seem to think using my carrier every day is costing me creds -- actually I am earning them. The 500+M cred I mention is after all carrier expenses, which are paid exclusively by exploration alone. The minerals in my hold are solely for financing the party I plan upon return to so-called civilization, but that's a ways down the road.
One word: Rates.
Weekly upkeep is about 9mil. 1 jump fuel is 9 mil too + 100k. Or 100 mins of mining.
All fixes together they did lately leads to this situation and it seems it will be worse in time.
So in projections, when all old cheap reserves will be gone - we will be playing to keep carrier move. Example, I want to go and fight thargoids, fine. It is 2 jumps. There and back. It is 18 mil just for fuel. It is 9 interceptors kill. Plain delivery of ship from bubble to station there 3 mil once. Then I can use long range ship which goes there in 5 jumps and swap ship.
FC becomes not even carrier.
 
One word: Rates.
Weekly upkeep is about 9mil. 1 jump fuel is 9 mil too + 100k. Or 100 mins of mining.
All fixes together they did lately leads to this situation and it seems it will be worse in time.
So in projections, when all old cheap reserves will be gone - we will be playing to keep carrier move. Example, I want to go and fight thargoids, fine. It is 2 jumps. There and back. It is 18 mil just for fuel. It is 9 interceptors kill. Plain delivery of ship from bubble to station there 3 mil once. Then I can use long range ship which goes there in 5 jumps and swap ship.
FC becomes not even carrier.
Why do you insist on misusing a carrier when you obviously dislike them so much? Masochistic streak lately? You need to

Decomm and prosper! 🖖
 
Only with refund of ARX. Because I paid for different thing and want at least that thing and that rules back. I.e. 3 hours mining were funding 65000 trip.
Hahahahahaha! Here's a parable:
A man once heard of a wonderful magical pack mule that could carry all his provisions and equipment and tow a trailer full of his very fast horses and also let him communicate with people who paid him to make maps of uncharted territory. When he went to the pack mule dealership he was told that these very special pack mules require very special food that is not east to obtain, and because they can haul huge amounts of stuff for long distances they needed to be fed regularly. Now the man thought the pack mule was a fine-looking animal and was convinced (without evidence, just wishing it was so) that it should be able to run at least as fast as his horses, and eat no more than ordinary horses, and that its food would be easy to find everywhere. So, propped up by vague and insupportable assumptions, he bought the pack mule and also paid for beautiful gold ribbons to weave into its mane. It was everything he hoped for! At first.

When the man found that pack mule food was not as easy to come by as he expected (despite warnings to the contrary) he demanded that either the pack mule change or the food sources change -- or preferably both! -- to accommodate him. Neither could and neither did. So he stormed back to the dealership raging and ranting bout how he had been deceived (even though the pack mule, when treated intelligently, could do all that was said it could do), and even demanded that the dealership reimburse him for the optional pretty ribbons. The dealer had two words for him:

Caveat emptor.
 
Hahahahahaha! Here's a parable:
A man once heard of a wonderful magical pack mule that could carry all his provisions and equipment and tow a trailer full of his very fast horses and also let him communicate with people who paid him to make maps of uncharted territory. When he went to the pack mule dealership he was told that these very special pack mules require very special food that is not east to obtain, and because they can haul huge amounts of stuff for long distances they needed to be fed regularly. Now the man thought the pack mule was a fine-looking animal and was convinced (without evidence, just wishing it was so) that it should be able to run at least as fast as his horses, and eat no more than ordinary horses, and that its food would be easy to find everywhere. So, propped up by vague and insupportable assumptions, he bought the pack mule and also paid for beautiful gold ribbons to weave into its mane. It was everything he hoped for! At first.

When the man found that pack mule food was not as easy to come by as he expected (despite warnings to the contrary) he demanded that either the pack mule change or the food sources change -- or preferably both! -- to accommodate him. Neither could and neither did. So he stormed back to the dealership raging and ranting bout how he had been deceived (even though the pack mule, when treated intelligently, could do all that was said it could do), and even demanded that the dealership reimburse him for the optional pretty ribbons. The dealer had two words for him:

Caveat emptor.
Your analogy is close but misses the point that food WAS both plentiful AND cheap when the "pack mule" was bought but then became 10x more scarce and 10x more expensive AFTER purchase AND that the dealership sets both the availability and price of the food.
 
Last edited:
Your analogy is close but misses the point that food WAS both plentiful AND cheap when the "pack mule" was bought but then became 10x more scarce and 10x more expensive AFTER purchase.
Nope, I went through the Great Rocket Tea Drought like everyone else. I also planned my carrier strategies in Beta 2 when LTDs, tritium and all core minerals were far more plentiful. Nothing about the vagaries of fuel scarcity and other changes (intentional or not) has altered that strategy one whit, and the carrier is performing exactly as I planned, perhaps because my strategy is adaptable to lean conditions. I don't insist on the Universe always conforming to my expectations, but instead play it as it lies, to borrow a phrase from another pastime. Works for me, though I understand others find it less than optimal. Doesn't change the fact that carriers are not required any more than any other type of vehicle is required other than you must own and operate at least one. If you choose to own and operate a carrier, then you also choose to accept its limitations, and any conditions that affect ownership, even if they are temporary or subject to change for other reasons such as trying to balance mining. I agree that that balancing has been clumsy at best, but one can either cope or put the carrier aside. Whether that be temporarily or permanently is also a matter of choice.
 
Nope, I went through the Great Rocket Tea Drought like everyone else. I also planned my carrier strategies in Beta 2 when LTDs, tritium and all core minerals were far more plentiful. Nothing about the vagaries of fuel scarcity and other changes (intentional or not) has altered that strategy one whit, and the carrier is performing exactly as I planned, perhaps because my strategy is adaptable to lean conditions. I don't insist on the Universe always conforming to my expectations, but instead play it as it lies, to borrow a phrase from another pastime. Works for me, though I understand others find it less than optimal. Doesn't change the fact that carriers are not required any more than any other type of vehicle is required other than you must own and operate at least one. If you choose to own and operate a carrier, then you also choose to accept its limitations, and any conditions that affect ownership, even if they are temporary or subject to change for other reasons such as trying to balance mining. I agree that that balancing has been clumsy at best, but one can either cope or put the carrier aside. Whether that be temporarily or permanently is also a matter of choice.
We aren't talking about beta 2, we're talking about PATCH 2. We also have FDEV explicitly stating that tritium is INTENDED to be as plentiful as in patch 2 AND, as of today, they have confirmed the issue on the tracker that tritium STILL isn't as plentiful as intended.

There's a bigger issue here in that people who bought carriers based on certain pre-existing conditions (namely the fact that mining had worked a certain way for years, that tritium was intentionally cheap and plentiful, and running costs were established at a certain level) then invested more REAL money in customising those carriers just to have the cost of ownership (measured in time) massively increase due to clumsy, bordering on inept, nerfing of those pre-existing conditions.
 
Last edited:
Crashes and Stability
  • Fixed an issue where loading into an instance in a system with a large amount of Fleet Carriers would cause very long load times (potentially long enough to cause a disconnect)
Looks like that didn't work out too well ? Got two extra long SC entries a few minutes ago at LHS 20 when trying to fly a ship from my FC over to Ohm City, both ended up with that "Orange Sidewinder" crap...


Edit/P.S.: I landed on my FC and afterwards the game didn't shut down correctly after exiting...
 
Last edited:
We aren't talking about beta 2, we're talking about PATCH 2. We also have FDEV explicitly stating that tritium is INTENDED to be as plentiful as in patch 2 AND acknowledging that tritium is INTENDED to be as plentiful as pre-PATCH 3 AND, as of today, they have confirmed the issue on the tracker that tritium STILL isn't as plentiful as intended.

There's a bigger issue here in that people who bought carriers based on certain pre-existing conditions (namely the fact that mining had worked a certain way for years, that tritium was intentionally cheap and plentiful, and running costs were established at a certain level) then invested more REAL money in customising those carriers just to have the cost of ownership (measured in time) massively increase due to clumsy, bordering on inept, nerfing of those pre-existing conditions.
Funny, I was not aware that Livery options affected operation of the carrier in any way irregardless of any other considerations. That "real money" spent for cosmetics is entirely separate from the issues surrounding fuel availability., which are still in flux but have nothing to do with how your carrier looks. The fact that Cmdrs willing to adapt to existing conditions can continue using their carriers in pursuit of both discoveries and profit belies the claim that they are now useless and thus all their costs must be refunded.

The fact that FDev has said the effects their changes had on tritium availability are wholly unintentional and that they are working to alleviate them (however competently is also a matter for discussion) argues against any refunds other than via decomms. They are not intentionally making things difficult for [some] carrier owners, so there is no reason to claim "Foul!" It is also important to point out that the Livery options are not being taken away or eliminated if you decomm in favor of waiting to see if the carrier situation improves for you. Like paint jobs and such for ships they can be used on possible future carriers. It's each Cmdr's choice whether or not to go that route.
 
Funny, I was not aware that Livery options affected operation of the carrier in any way irregardless of any other considerations. That "real money" spent for cosmetics is entirely separate from the issues surrounding fuel availability., which are still in flux but have nothing to do with how your carrier looks. The fact that Cmdrs willing to adapt to existing conditions can continue using their carriers in pursuit of both discoveries and profit belies the claim that they are now useless and thus all their costs must be refunded.

The fact that FDev has said the effects their changes had on tritium availability are wholly unintentional and that they are working to alleviate them (however competently is also a matter for discussion) argues against any refunds other than via decomms. They are not intentionally making things difficult for [some] carrier owners, so there is no reason to claim "Foul!" It is also important to point out that the Livery options are not being taken away or eliminated if you decomm in favor of waiting to see if the carrier situation improves for you. Like paint jobs and such for ships they can be used on possible future carriers. It's each Cmdr's choice whether or not to go that route.
Use a little transitive inference to piece things together. Of course livery doesn't affect carrier operation, but the inability to use a carrier as one had expected (and I do suspect there are likely a significant number of carrier owners who bought under the impression that "costs were X, upkeep was Y and fuel availability was Z" only to have the subsequent changes make ownership impractical either from an in-game economic standpoint or an IRL time investment, meaning that they would be left little recourse but to decommission and waste the actual money they pumped into the game for an asset that was not as advertised shortly after purchase.

Regarding the patch, yes, we are long past the point where we can conclude this is nothing more than sheer incompetence; not only have the patches failed to accomplish the initial stated goals, but they have introduced new, worse, bugs. We're not talking about missing the mark but still coming close, we're not even on the same course as the target at this point. I find it inconceivable that any of these patches would pass dev-testing sufficiently to warrant being passed off to QC for further testing and I'd be equally surprised for QC to pass the patches we've seen thus far through to production, therefore I have to conclude that this is a problem with practices and procedures when it comes to testing. Wherever the fault lies, ultimately, multiple patches have been pushed out, none of which actually accomplishes stated goals which is incompetence any way you slice it.
 
...the inability to use a carrier as one had expected (and I do suspect there are likely a significant number of carrier owners who bought under the impression that "costs were X, upkeep was Y and fuel availability was Z" only to have the subsequent changes make ownership impractical either from an in-game economic standpoint or an IRL time investment, meaning that they would be left little recourse but to decommission and waste the actual money they pumped into the game for an asset that was not as advertised shortly after purchase.
Problematic phrases:
"...as one had expected..." -- expectations are not Frontier's responsibility
"...under the impression..." -- ditto for impressions
"...subsequent changes make ownership impractical either from an in-game economic standpoint or an IRL time investment..." -- demonstrably inaccurate
"...left little recourse but to decommission..." -- emotionally charged hyperbole at best -- it's a choice, and the recourse is to adapt to the circumstances
"...waste the actual money they pumped into the game..." -- they still own the livery, it is not wasted unless they allow it to be wasted
"...for an asset that was not as advertised." -- Can you carry your fleet on a FC? Yes. Then it is as advertised. All other considerations are up to a Commander to implement, including the use of FCs for solo exploration, which has been shown to be perfectly feasible and profitable, even in the midst of the Great Rocket Tea Drought.
 
Last edited:
"...subsequent changes make ownership impractical either from an in-game economic standpoint or an IRL time investment..." -- demonstrably inaccurate
I agree totally with you here. Other than today I've been using my FC purely for BGS work and each week I've been earning enough to keep the carrier funded for a month.
 
Top Bottom