Hide fleet carriers in solo

[varonica]

Any ideas on what that may be? I've seen systems where there have been more FCs than planets in the system, I'm sure you have seen the same thing.

The limit is the total number of objects that can be in a system, minus the planets, stars stations etc and any ID64's reserved by FDEV for future use. That number is either 256 or 512 depending on whether my recall is correct. It's based on the maximum number of 64bit ID's available to a system, which is a 9 bit digit, I recall hearing one digit was reserved which would make 8 bits available and 256 objects, but if my memory is incorrect and it isn't reserved then it's 512 objects. Because FC's are visible in all modes and platforms they have to have their own ID64, which is why moving them takes so long, because that ID64 has to be updated across all platforms. It's also why you can't stack them in the system map at the moment, although there may be a way around that.

The limit is IIRC 16 per body in the system, so a system with 1 star and one planet could have 32 carriers, obviously things will get cluttered in a 94 body system.

There are systems where you can't put anymore FC's even though there are free orbits, the limit for stellar objects has been reached, and no it's not 16 FC's per body I have seen more than that, I believe it could be in the range of 26 but I haven't seen any solid evidence for a limit per body yet but I am assuming they use the same orbital slots as moons which are naturally limited by the letters in the alphabet, but there will be some sort of database field limit. If it was 16 the field would be 5 digits, which makes sense in a binary systems, however I have counted more than 16 around a body so we can probably assume at least 6 digit field and 32 slots available for FC's.

 

[Sashamorning]

When I move my FC, I aim for a station so I can just hop over. If there are too many FCs there, I need to know that. FCs act exactly like stations, they just move.

I don't see the issue with the system map. I don't have a need to zoom out that far.

What bothers me MUCH more is that if I turn off FCs in the nav panel, it hides mine as well. If I'm in a parking lot, I have to scroll to find mine. I'd rather have the FCs toggled off all the time, but it makes sense for only MY carrier to show up in MY panel (it's already highlighted in the list, so there's obviously a toggle for it in the code, but I have to scroll through the list). I don't see why "my carrier" can't be something that's set to be on when I'm in the system without having to show the other hundred.

 

[Sashamorning]

Hide FCs in open.

Yeah, that'll work well when a group wants to all get on an FC without having to set up a separate private group session... how does hiding an FC in open make ANY sense?

I made a Grand Tour with my FC, took a bunch of people with me that are on different platforms and such. Used Discord to coordinate. Had a blast. Can't do that with FCs hidden in open.

 

[Captain Willard]

YAY
I'm the only FC in my home system.
The FC's name clearly says it all.
"Attempt No Landings"
I turn off FC's in the galaxy map until I head home.

 

[EvoBeardy]

Not quite on the same subject, but it'd be nice if disabling the Fleet Carriers from the Nav Panel still showed the FC you own or are winged with only.

I appreciate the fact its highlighted slightly in yellow, but scrolling through a bajillion other FCs to find my own in the Nav Panel is a bit meh.

 

[Kerissimo]

Upkeep

No, no no no, NO! Carrier upkeep has been corrected already, we don't need more. It's problem of UI, not paying more.

I don't know what everyone is complaining about, I haven't seen any for couple of weeks.

Of course I am wondering round the outer spur at the moment, but that is besides the point.

Carriers out there are nice change of scenery, but system full of carriers, well they can expand system map nicely .

 

[CMDR Maxus]

I have to agree, fleet carriers are a really annoying addition to the game that I would like to hide from the system map. Its obviously been half arsed and not very well thought through, but apart from that, It makes the system maps look horrible. You can at least filter them from the navigation panel AFAIK thats it, but yes an absolute nuisance of a mechanic.

 

[GTB]

I recently started playing Elite: Dangerous again after some time, and I was surprised to see that player owned fleet carriers show up on the system map, in the navigation panel, and in flight while in supercruise while playing in solo. I'm not sure how other people feel about this, but I think player owned fleet carriers showing up in these places while in solo takes up too much space, and can make finding locations in star systems more difficult.

Look at the "set filter" option in the left nav panel. Tick everything in except for carriers - and they will not show in the list of system items you scroll down

You can enter some systems that are popular and seems like way too many fleet carriers are parking up in them which makes scroll down the nav panel a bit of pain to get a lock on your station target destination. Ngaliin is one such system in which there's way too many fleet carriers in it all the time, a place where people go to do the Empire rep

 

[Lysette]

Look at the "set filter" option in the left nav panel. Tick everything in except for carriers - and they will not show in the list of system items you scroll down

You can enter some systems that are popular and seems like way too many fleet carriers are parking up in them which makes scroll down the nav panel a bit of pain to get a lock on your station target destination. Ngaliin is one such system in which there's way too many fleet carriers in it all the time, a place where people go to do the Empire rep

i found it as well helpful to scroll back to the nav beacon after I've set my destination. It can be confusing in the next system, if the scroll cursor is way down and in my mind I go for the distance to scroll by the distance of the destination to the sun - especially with "sun" selected as well, it is better to scroll back up to nav beacon to have a similar start in every system.

 

[JTFireblaze]

Just allow players to filter them. And owners to make them private and hidden from the map.

Owner? Set visible to: [Public] [Squadron] [Friends] [Private]

Player? [See all] [See squadron's] [See friends] [Hide all but mine]

And if an owner hasn't logged in in a couple of weeks, hide their carrier until they come back.

Sorted.

 

[Lysette]

Just allow players to filter them. And owners to make them private and hidden from the map.

Owner? Set visible to: [Public] [Squadron] [Friends] [Private]

Player? [See all] [See squadron's] [See friends] [Hide all but mine]

And if an owner hasn't logged in in a couple of weeks, hide their carrier until they come back.

Sorted.

the latter is problematic - these Cmdrs pay upkeep and have a right to have their carriers in space and available for other Cmdrs.

 

[JTFireblaze]

the latter is problematic - these Cmdrs pay upkeep and have a right to have their carriers in space and available for other Cmdrs.

If they're not actively playing the game then they can't be that bothered? Reduce upkeep when in the "dormant" state to a very low level.

 

[Lysette]

If they're not actively playing the game then they can't be that bothered? Reduce upkeep when in the "dormant" state to a very low level.

Am I wrong or are carriers not as well warehouses selling stuff to other Cmdrs. in this case paying dormant upkeep without any chance to sell stuff to others is just bad.

 

[JTFireblaze]

Am I wrong or are carriers not as well warehouses selling stuff to other Cmdrs.

This is true. But if the player hasn't logged in in a couple of weeks and aren't actually playing the game why should they still be able to make the passive income from that?

And it's not like there aren't hundreds of other carriers a player could use from actually active players.

 

[Lysette]

This is true. But if the player hasn't logged in in a couple of weeks and aren't actually playing the game why should they still be able to make the passive income from that?

And it's not like there aren't hundreds of other carriers a player could use from actually active players.

i don't have a carrier, but I have stations in EVE - I'm currently not actively playing EVE - well, just to update my wares to sell there - and I would be really unhappy with such a solution. I think it is unfair and it takes away possible game play - having bases out in the dark for example. There is no obligation to be active - and this is passive income and well paid for as well, the upkeep is not just a piece of cake.

FDev is advertising total freedom - and this includes to have carriers without to play actively for a while. For as long as the upkeep is paid, they should remain in space.

It is as well not said, that these players do not play actively on a different account. I have 7 accounts in EVE for example, each with 3 characters, most of them are inactive for most of the time, I cannot play 21 characters all the same - and I need a chance as well to play something else once in a while.

 

[JTFireblaze]

i don't have a carrier, but I have stations in EVE - I'm currently not actively playing EVE - well, just to update my wares to sell there - and I would be really unhappy with such a solution. I think it is unfair and it takes away possible game play - having bases out in the dark for example.

Updating your wares to sell in EVE - that requires you to log in to the game to perform those actions doesn't it? Does the same not apply in Elite if you wanted to top up your carrier's store shelves?

I suppose it's less of a problem outside the bubble because the ships will be more spread out. But if a carrier is sat empty of stock because the owner hasn't logged in to top it up, and there are a dozen others that all offer refueling, repairs, cartographics in the same system then it is just cluttering stuff up.


The main point of my idea was around the filtered views for a player and being able to set your carrier to "private". I admit that the inactive player solution may require some tweaking and user testing to become good for all. But I don't believe that having an inactive player's carrier just lying around doing nothing is useful.

 

[Lysette]

That is true, if the carrier isn't offering anything anymore, it could be suspended for a while.

Well in EVE the one updating the wares is not necessarily the owner of the station - it could be a director of the corporation owning the station for example or an officer assigned to this role.

 

[JTFireblaze]

That is true, if the carrier isn't offering anything anymore, it could be suspended for a while.

Well in EVE the one updating the wares is not necessarily the owner of the station - it could be a director of the corporation owning the station for example.

If only carriers could be squadron owned instead of strictly personal...

 

[Sunyavadin]

Not sure this is possible with the current set up. At the moment they display on the system map as stations, it may take a serious re-write of the way the system map displays those assets.

And yet, they chose to focus on making an absolute mess of the galmap instead of doing this for Odyssey

 

[Lysette]

Like this. In case you've never encountered the System map yet:

View attachment 213056

This here is an example - it makes one think why are there so many carriers in this system - there must be reason and to figure that out is part of the game play as well.