Honest Question: (Revised) Why don't we want Fleet Carriers to interact directly with NPC's and the trade simulation?

[Dryheat4u]

I'm not really clear about what the big deal would be. It would seem, that if we want to simulate maintenance and upkeep costs as a realistic level that we would want NPC's to trade and interact with the carriers as a means of generating income from tariffs. I would love it if I could get NPC's to load and unload my carrier over several hours by setting the right prices. For that matter, I really love the idea of providing services to sparce systems that I calculate that NPC's would want and need.

It seems to me that Fdev are missing a golden game-play opportunity, but I say that as someone who only engages with the commodities market as far as the trade system requires. Are there good reasons not to allow carriers to directly affect the trade simulation?

 

[Bigmaec]

That's two different things.
BGS affecting carriers are bad, because there is no counter to them. You can't destroy them or drive them off.

NPC traffic would propably generate indirect income, which FD seemingly doesn't like.

 

[Dryheat4u]

That's two different things.
BGS affecting carriers are bad, because there is no counter to them. You can't destroy them or drive them off.

NPC traffic would propably generate indirect income, which FD seemingly doesn't like.

Sorry about the confusion, I've rephrased the question to better reflect what I was asking.

 

[Drelthar]

I don't get how people think NPC interaction with a carrier would work.

It can't use actual NPC's landing, as there's potentially thousands of instances, all with NPC's in them, none of which is tracked as those ships are on the player client.

Would it just make up a number every tick based on "stuff"?

Idea seems a bit flawed to me.

 

[Dryheat4u]

I don't get how people think NPC interaction with a carrier would work.

It can't use actual NPC's landing, as there's potentially thousands of instances, all with NPC's in them, none of which is tracked as those ships are on the player client.

Would it just make up a number every tick based on "stuff"?

Idea seems a bit flawed to me.

Sure, that's actually how stations work right now. Every server tick supply and demand are adjusted based on calculated supply and deman values. There's never actually any phisicalized NPC travel between systems, or even between staions. The NPC's we see are generated on the fly based on what the econ sim decides would be likely. They dont actually trade anything when they land, and most of them just fly fixed loops in system before jumping out (despawning) after a certain amount of time.

Would be awesome if NPC traffic were fully phisicalized, but that would require the game to run on a single instance. The combat and jump mechanics would need a lot of attention before that would be any fun.

 

[Dryheat4u]

Personally, I really like the "quantum" econ simulation tech that Star Citizen has been working on. Supply and demand are fully emulated by monitoring and tracking all goods and services as they physically move through the game's environment. Pirate and security forces respond organically based on the value of goods being moved and were they are being moved, and the cost of transit becomes a function of risk and reward. Large numbers of pirates increase the costs of all the goods they target, since traders hiring escorts based on calculated risk are also accounted for.

These factors then influence the mission board, where players and NPC's compete for jobs. That's what's cool about Star Citizens mission boad, actual economic factors affect the real missions, which are generated to meet a direct need. Escort missions are generated by physical NPC's because they calculate their route is high risk. You then go and escort that NPC specifically. Trade and deliver missions are directly related to an unmet supply order that emerges organically from economic interactions.

Its brilliant really, and I wish that Fdev could implement something similar. Though, like I said earlier, it would require the game to operate on a single instance. They would need to do some serious meta smashing, and PvP re-balancing in order to make that work. Along with major revisions to multi-crew, and wing jump mechanics. They are capable of this from a talent perspective, but I'm not sure if the corporate finance people at the top will let them take the related risks.

If they put out another kick-starter with these features listed as priorities, I'd pay into it. Hell, if this is part of new era, I'd buy some ARX packs or consider a pre-order. I havent bought ARX since they implemented the new currency system.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I don't get how people think NPC interaction with a carrier would work.

It can't use actual NPC's landing, as there's potentially thousands of instances, all with NPC's in them, none of which is tracked as those ships are on the player client.

Would it just make up a number every tick based on "stuff"?

Idea seems a bit flawed to me.

I mean number already ticks up based on stuff. But that number is upkeep.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's two different things.
BGS affecting carriers are bad, because there is no counter to them. You can't destroy them or drive them off.

I half formulated an idea that FCs could be affiliated with a PMF, and depending on how well that faction did determined the upkeep of a carrier. I never fully resolved the idea, but it could possibly be one way to 'harm' an FC- the FCs 'support' is abstracted, and boom or investment lowers support costs (while the opposite tails off this auto support and you have to pay).

 

[Morbad]

NPCs aren't part of what limited trade simulation ED has.

They have no persistence and are just there as window dressing. The only transactions they are part of is when they are destroyed or pirated by a CMDR.

Personally, I really like the "quantum" econ simulation tech that Star Citizen has been working on. Supply and demand are fully emulated by monitoring and tracking all goods and services as they physically move through the game's environment. Pirate and security forces respond organically based on the value of goods being moved and were they are being moved, and the cost of transit becomes a function of risk and reward. Large numbers of pirates increase the costs of all the goods they target, since traders hiring escorts based on calculated risk are also accounted for.

These factors then influence the mission board, where players and NPC's compete for jobs. That's what's cool about Star Citizens mission boad, actual economic factors affect the real missions, which are generated to meet a direct need. Escort missions are generated by physical NPC's because they calculate their route is high risk. You then go and escort that NPC specifically. Trade and deliver missions are directly related to an unmet supply order that emerges organically from economic interactions.

Its brilliant really, and I wish that Fdev could implement something similar. Though, like I said earlier, it would require the game to operate on a single instance. They would need to do some serious meta smashing, and PvP re-balancing in order to make that work. Along with major revisions to multi-crew, and wing jump mechanics. They are capable of this from a talent perspective, but I'm not sure if the corporate finance people at the top will let them take the related risks.

If they put out another kick-starter with these features listed as priorities, I'd pay into it. Hell, if this is part of new era, I'd buy some ARX packs or consider a pre-order. I havent bought ARX since they implemented the new currency system.

This is the way any trade game that even has NPCs should be.

I'm sure there are ways to abstract NPC demographic and economic impact in a convincing way, without requiring a single instance or perfect persistence, but I'm even more sure that Frontier isn't going to put in the effort to do so, and that such effort would be lost on most of the player base, who seem content to just collect numbers.

 

[Ragamuffin1979]

I’m not against it, I’m all for it.

 

[ebbrell]

I think carrier should not only trade with NpCs but it should also help with BGS

Having a carrier in the system should boost mission influence by one + for the faction linked to the squadron of the owner. Other factions should fear the carrier being there.

Obviously if the faction isn't in the system then no affect.
Maybe the security bars of factions should go down each day the carrier remains. This could be off set by other faction actions.

We should hand in combat bonds and they should be handled as though the carrier is a station in the system while its located there. If handed once leaving the system, then no affect.

A carrier is normally a warship, these at the moment feel like transporters with a shop attached.

 

[Han Zulu]

NPC traffic would propably generate indirect income, which FD seemingly doesn't like.

Yeah. They like indirect, fictitious, off-line costs, but not revenue.

 

[npcole]

I do wish there was a way to drive fleet carriers out of a system. Then there would be a way to have them do something interesting with the background sim. As it is, they are just extra bases.... I don't understand the hysteria, but I think they will end up being as popular as multi-crew.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I do wish there was a way to drive fleet carriers out of a system. Then there would be a way to have them do something interesting with the background sim. As it is, they are just extra bases.... I don't understand the hysteria, but I think they will end up being as popular as multi-crew.

Aka a failure

 

[Dryheat4u]

I do wish there was a way to drive fleet carriers out of a system. Then there would be a way to have them do something interesting with the background sim. As it is, they are just extra bases.... I don't understand the hysteria, but I think they will end up being as popular as multi-crew.

Yeah, its a shame that Fdev hasn't gotten around to fixing MC and Wings yet, I consider both features as high priority for repair. The are the biggest barriers to me having fun with friends. Right over the "pay friend" button.

 

[Dommarraa]

No sure where people get the idea fc are not for bgs. They can be used and abused to totally tank or boom systems in the 2 hours required to jump in and out without even appearing on the traffic report.

Tested it myself in beta. However tests take days to do, and FD had already done the 'thanks for your feedback we know what to focus on' before I could finish the tests.

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

I know it's different but I've played a lot of Escape from Tarkov recently and they've implemented a flee market about a year ago.
Trading goods with others players and you can set your price. Taxes for selling goods.
The market is driven like a real economy, certain commodities became expensive when they are scarce and vice versa.

A player market could really in Elite if well thought

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Sure, that's actually how stations work right now. Every server tick supply and demand are adjusted based on calculated supply and deman values.

Yes ... but only in the direction of "nothing is happening". Supply and demand "used up" by players slowly resets, but it doesn't move otherwise in the absence of player activity.

 

[Dommarraa]

To be slightly fair to FD on the player market stuff. People HAVE asked for a player driven market for years. As those players didn't really have a clue what they were asking for, it's not surprising that FD didn't either.
Now people seem to want a player market that the NPC's use. Just sounds all a bit stream of consciousness

 

[gorankar]

How does Fdev keep carriers from being used to influence the BGS? Moving cargo for a faction is moving cargo for a faction. Using one to aid in repair and rearm operations a handful of Ls from a CZ can help influence the BGS. Even PP will be influenced by FC for the same reasons. You can't store PP cargo on the FC itself, but a group or multi account holder can store ships full of PP cargo and release them a few Ls from their destination.

These things absolutely will effect the BGS, PP and CG/II.

With that out of the way, there is really no reason, outside of technical ones, that NPCs should not trade with a carrier or use it's facilities instead of just being decorations for your FC. Maybe at worst they become a balance issue, where you leave your FC and come back and it has been bankrupted or made you a trillion Cr. due to some RNG madness. Fdev does appear to not want you to leave a FC somewhere and have any possibility of it generating more than token income when unattended for more than a few days.

LOL, why even log into the game. Allow us to manage our FC from a web interface. No need to start the game. just a few clicks on a webpage or from a phone app.