I just got blown up by my own carrier, while defending myself from the police that are meant to defend my carrier.

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

I'll concede that the ship I was using had no place in combat and the damage threshold may be so low as to be irrelevant to engineered weapons.

Again though, were you change the rules for a carrier owner in an instance, do you create room for exploits, especially where you've already said you were killing off sys sec to damage a controlling faction's influence.

So you can't use carriers to influence the BGS through combat. You can't use carriers to play the valid and legit "space pirate" profession in Elite, because your own carrier will side with local police and help them kill you.

Basically you pay 5 billion for a base you can move? I mean yeah, not a great way to enhance gameplay in my opinion. But what do I know....

 

[Darth Silen]

I'll concede that the ship I was using had no place in combat and the damage threshold may be so low as to be irrelevant to engineered weapons.

Again though, were you change the rules for a carrier owner in an instance, do you create room for exploits, especially where you've already said you were killing off sys sec to damage a controlling faction's influence.

if they dont want us to be able to do things that change controlling factions, why is it possible to do so? we would never have had the idea to try it if we hadnt realised it was part of the game, it is, so as we've exhausted other aspects of the game we decided to give this a try, hoping that one day we could succeed and know we made a real impact in the game, granted small, but one that was real

 

[Red Anders]

That 11 line sentence makes everything much clearer.

(I'm joking, before you even start .)

 

[Old Duck]

OMG - the replies from the 'old guard' in this thread are reminding me why I barely venture into these forums these days, and why I haven't played the game in over a year.

Yes, @sharp312 - you are correct that it is indeed very dumb that your own fleet carrier would try to shoot down it's employer/owner because of a stray shot. I know several of the forum users are trying their best to convince you that it's your own fault for shooting at your fleet carrier, but they're being wilfully ignorant on several points:

• Fleet carriers are indestructible, and so it was in absolutely no danger from your stray shot.
• It's your fleet carrier - treating you as hostile should be the last resort, not the first.
• The game should implement significant leeway for stray shots made against your own employees and property, especially for something as big and immovable as a fleet carrier.

For me, the prospect of having a high intensity battle around your fleet carrier against multiple hostiles sounds like a lot of fun. Having a stray shot result in me becoming hostile with my own fleet carrier such that I have to abandon it indefinitely sounds like the opposite of fun.

It's called Elite: Dangerous not Elite: Noobs Can Shoot Friendlies Without Consequences.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I view that as being a low probability event. And one that we can address later if it comes up with some sort of mechanic. I leave it up to you to invent one for this situation.

The paramount concern is that something you buy (and it IS a purchase not a lease) can willfully turn it's guns on you and murder you indiscriminately as if you're any random CMDR. That can't, and shouldn't, happen.

I view shooting a carrier as being a low probability event.

There's no need to address it later when it's already been addressed. Of course it's low probability- it's impossible right now. Are you really saying it should be possible to gank a player at your carrier where I can shoot where I want but the other player gets sent straight to rebuy if they shoot me or the carrier?

 

[thelion]

If anyone is still looking at this post I think I need to clear a few things up as many have got the wrong idea and seem determined to remind the OP in question, sharp312, that what happened was his fault and he should stop moaning about 'just a rebuy', this is what happened put across a bit more clearly as at the time of the post, he was pretty annoyed so meaning got lost in the rant.
I was there when it happened, the carrier was in the hostile system because its our 'home' system, we decided it would be fun to try and change the power dynamic of that system, this is why the system ended up hostile, I watched as the cops came and bombarded the OP in question whilst his ship sat on the carrier, they even stored the ship and still the cops persisted in firing apon the closed hatch, the OP then decided that they were tired of this constant attack and would engage the cops, funnily enough to roleplay protecting it, its not like they were any real threat after all so roleplay is all we have, they happily flew around fighting the cops no problem as more and more came in as back up, all fine, fun gameplay, the problem came when one of these cops whilst being fired apon decided to avoid the attack, or maybe they arnt that smart, they at least flew under the carrier, due to the constant battle the OP tracked the cop in question till it was out of site, realising last second that it had brought the carrier into the line of fire, the OP immediately ceased fire for fear of hitting the carrier, but it was too late, some multicannon rounds clipped the side of the carrier and it was game over, boom, no warning from the carrier to be careful, any sense of protecting the carrier was lost, the immersion was broken and questions then got raised, it was never about the rebuy cost, or that we didnt know that hitting the carrier would result in being fired apon, it was simply a case of their own carrier (fdev confirmed before you get pedantic on ownership) seemed more allied with the local authority than the player that owned it/controlled it, an authority that in our 'personal narrative' we were against and slowly reducing their hold on the system, this is why it was an annoying event, nothing to do with money lost, it was that our plans had been foiled by our own tools, we couldnt play the game in the way we were finding fun

Bally hell, you do know that paragraphs exist right?

 

[Several Puffins]

If we're really after it making sense, and not just complaining about a rebuy, no it probably shouldn't return fire- you should just be billed a extra for upkeep, which should be more expensive than usual because they're brand new tech. The invulnerability of the carrier is meaningless, so are stations and they fire back. In lore, neither is impervious, but in game they both are because it's a griefing nightmare to allow them to be damaged, as the limited run of UA bombing showed.

If you really do want it to make sense, the carrier's relationship with the police should be either

A) Your carrier is a separate legal entity and employees are bound by local authority to assist the police against you in any fight (so, still no fighting police at your carrier).

B) Your carrier is wholly yours, with no legal oversight, but hostile sys authorities can and will force it to retreat to another system within 10 minutes of arrival (So, a very limited window to fight police in which ATR presumably arrive to reverb your shields anyway).

The latter would be cool, with room for fun dynamics, but I suspect a lot of people would aggro authorities and then complain that their carriers left.

 

[galahad2069]

If we're really after it making sense, and not just complaining about a rebuy, no it probably shouldn't return fire- you should just be billed a extra for upkeep, which should be more expensive than usual because they're brand new tech. The invulnerability of the carrier is meaningless, so are stations and they fire back. In lore, neither is impervious, but in game they both are because it's a griefing nightmare to allow them to be damaged, as the limited run of UA bombing showed.

If you really do want it to make sense, the carrier's relationship with the police should be either

A) Your carrier is a separate legal entity and employees are bound by local authority to assist the police against you in any fight (so, still no fighting police at your carrier).

B) Your carrier is wholly yours, with no legal oversight, but hostile sys authorities can and will force it to retreat to another system within 10 minutes of arrival (So, a very limited window to fight police in which ATR presumably arrive to reverb your shields anyway).

The latter would be cool, with room for fun dynamics, but I suspect a lot of people would aggro authorities and then complain that their carriers left.

You forgot to mention option C: your carrier won't kill cops and other NPC's and players just because they attacked your ship, but it won't shoot at its owner if they accidentally hit the carrier. Win-win, OP's problem solved, without any BGS or griefing consequences.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Oh, oh! Let me try, please!

You are Cmdr William Adama in command of the Battlestar Galactica which has just come under attack from Cylon Raiders. You order the launch of Colonial Vipers to engage the Cylons and defend the Battlestar. The Cylons perform strafing runs across the hull of the Battlestar, while Vipers attempt to destroy them. The Cylons use evasive maneuvers to avoid being shot, and as a result some of the Vipers' weapon shots hit the Battlestar Galactica herself, causing no damage.

Do you:

1. Ignore the shots from your own Vipers, because you know they are obviously not intentionally trying to destroy you?
2. Ignore the shots from your own Vipers, because you know their weapons can't harm you anyway?
3. Issue a warning to your own vipers to please be a bit more careful?
4. Destroy your own Vipers?
   1. (Bonus points if one of those vipers targeted for destruction actually has Cmdr William Adama himself in the pilot seat!)

In what reality (imagined, in-game, or otherwise) would option (4) be the best choice?

You understand if/then right?

Clearly I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying IF we have to take FC's feelings on this situation into consideration for some reason, THEN x.

Just to answer these both in one, the issue we're going to have is getting people to agree what an imaginary crew would do in a very particular set of circumstances. Some would imagine the crew should act one way, some would imagine the crew should act another, both are opinions on some imaginary crew's thinking. So that is the problematic part.

You only need change or add one parameter to the original story, so then you could easily arrive at a different opinion about what the imaginary crew were doing.

There is a well known thing in recovery circles, it is about the dangers of committing to an action based on what you think someone else is thinking.

 

[Darth Silen]

Bally hell, you do know that paragraphs exist right?

sorry old chum, the queens English is not my strongest suit, I fought the grammar 's you see, old habits die hard, what what and all that

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

the OP then decided that they were tired of this constant attack and would engage the cops,

Which in any realm is going to end badly, it would have been far simpler to stay in the carrier and move the carrier.

it was that our plans had been foiled by our own tools, we couldnt play the game in the way we were finding fun

Yes, your way of playing was reckless, you wanted to make base in a hostile system, you wanted to fight the cops and finally you wanted to be able to accidentally shoot your (or the OP's) own Carrier and expect no consequences from it,.

It's not that your plan was foiled by the tools, it was that your plan was foiled by being the plan it was. It foiled itself.

 

[Darth Silen]

Which in any realm is going to end badly, it would have been far simpler to stay in the carrier and move the carrier.


Yes, your way of playing was reckless, you wanted to make base in a hostile system, you wanted to fight the cops and finally you wanted to be able to accidentally shoot your (or the OP's) own Carrier and expect no consequences from it,.

It's not that your plan was foiled by the tools, it was that your plan was foiled by being the plan it was. It foiled itself.

we wernt looking for simple, we were looking for sense, we made base long before it was hostile, our plan was fine untill we returned to the carrier to chill for 5 and realised the cops came after us, engaging the cops wasnt the issue, as reckless as you may see that, at no point did it become threatening, hence us even trying this in the first place, the issue is in our narrative it would be better if the carrier was on our side, we get that it wasnt, we're saying it would be more fun if it was, we don't want to be able to use it too our advantage to fight them, it was meant to be a safe pit stop in a hostile sytem, as clearly the stations wernt an option, we now know this playstyle isnt possible and thats a shame, thats all, it wasnt meant to be easy, but being stopped in our tracks for this reason is a shame, the same can be said for a pirate playstyle, both should be supported as both add aspects to the game, your literally fighting that being restricted is better

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Just to answer these both in one, the issue we're going to have is getting people to agree what an imaginary crew would do in a very particular set of circumstances. Some would imagine the crew should act one way, some would imagine the crew should act another, both are opinions on some imaginary crew's thinking. So that is the problematic part.

You only need change or add one parameter to the original story, so then you could easily arrive at a different opinion about what the imaginary crew were doing.

There is a well known thing in recovery circles, it is about the dangers of committing to an action based on what you think someone else is thinking.

I guess although, like I said, I really don't care what the imaginary crew would do/think about this, because I own them. I order them around. And I'm the one who cuts their paycheck. Why should they EVER be firing on me?

To me it doesn't make sense to rank NPC feelings ahead of this community. But okay, if we go down that route, do you seriously think the NPC's FC crew response in this scenario was rational, reasonable, or believable in any way?


If Fleet Carriers weren't invulnerable....maybe I could see this retcon narrative of a FC crew fearing for their ship having some traction.

 

[Northpin]

The 'that makes LORE sense' answer...you don't OWN the carrier, remember? Theoretically, Carrier response is 100% in line with shipyard owner's interests, which is to protect the asset (the carrier) from any harm...including the renter (you). While this reason sucks, it is also more accurate and explains one of the many things that make carriers such a crummy feature for the majority of the player population.

This ^^
Blame Brewer Corp and their moto: We have Carriers. You don't. Any questions?

 

[sharp312]

No, the problem is the carrier owner can shoot you and you can't shoot the carrier owner without the carrier retaliating. Should there be a possibility of this scenario happening?

I completley get that hitting the pads is an anti-griefing measure, but its a one. If you dont miss your shots then the carrier doesent shoot you? Why isnt it that if you actually hit your target THATS when it starts shooting you?

 

[Arindor]

Oh, oh! Let me try, please!

You are Cmdr William Adama in command of the Battlestar Galactica which has just come under attack from Cylon Raiders. You order the launch of Colonial Vipers to engage the Cylons and defend the Battlestar. The Cylons perform strafing runs across the hull of the Battlestar, while Vipers attempt to destroy them. The Cylons use evasive maneuvers to avoid being shot, and as a result some of the Vipers' weapon shots hit the Battlestar Galactica herself, causing no damage.

Do you:

1. Ignore the shots from your own Vipers, because you know they are obviously not intentionally trying to destroy you?
2. Ignore the shots from your own Vipers, because you know their weapons can't harm you anyway?
3. Issue a warning to your own vipers to please be a bit more careful?
4. Destroy your own Vipers?
   1. (Bonus points if one of those vipers targeted for destruction actually has Cmdr William Adama himself in the pilot seat!)

In what reality (imagined, in-game, or otherwise) would option (4) be the best choice?

ROFL. Brilliant. Although 3 and 4 should NOT happen.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

we wernt looking for simple, we were looking for sense, we made base long before it was hostile, our plan was fine untill we returned to the carrier to chill for 5 and realised the cops came after us, engaging the cops wasnt the issue, as reckless as you may see that, at no point did it become threatening, hence us even trying this in the first place, the issue is in our narrative it would be better if the carrier was on our side, we get that it wasnt, we're saying it would be more fun if it was, we don't want to be able to use it too our advantage to fight them, it was meant to be a safe pit stop in a hostile sytem, as clearly the stations wernt an option, we now know this playstyle isnt possible and thats a shame, thats all, it wasnt meant to be easy, but being stopped in our tracks for this reason is a shame, the same can be said for a pirate playstyle, both should be supported as both add aspects to the game, your literally fighting that being restricted is better

I guess although, like I said, I really don't care what the imaginary crew would do/think about this, because I own them. I order them around. And I'm the one who cuts their paycheck. Why should they EVER be firing on me?

To me it doesn't make sense to rank NPC feelings ahead of this community. But okay, if we go down that route, do you seriously think the NPC's FC crew response in this scenario was rational, reasonable, or believable in any way?


If Fleet Carriers weren't invulnerable....maybe I could see this retcon narrative of a FC crew fearing for their ship having some traction.

I feel we might not agree so this is my last word, then respectfully, I believe I will call it a day.

Before we get to the issue of whether NPCs rank higher, or the imagined thought processes of an imaginary crew. let us recap and establish some facts.

Mistakes were made long before the Carrier opened fire, perceptions of the role of the police in that system, not moving the carrier to name but two. Without those mistakes it is unlikely that the outcome would have happened, but even saying that, if you're going to shoot shots in any part of space, it is incumbent on you to do your utmost best to aim them at the correct target.

How many other people have we seen posting 'I accidentally shot my Carrier and it destroyed my ship'?

Not many, if any, to my recollection.

It is such an obscure thing to happen, the requirements for it to happen seem to be quite involved, it is not just likely to happen more often than not. As previously stated, I have played many hours with my Carrier and have managed to not shoot it in all that time.

So even if you don't like the idea that your Carrier will destroy you, it takes an amount of mistakes or bad planning or lack of knowledge to be in the position to be firing shots in the vicinity of your carrier in the first place. Fix those problems, and the carrier shooting you will never be a problem, as it appears to have not been a problem for quite a lot of people.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Because he shot killed a colonel? If so, great spot

(Had to amend the method of despatch, can't have a mistake that bad on my record lol. Embarassingly, it's probably my favourite film too.)

I have forwarded this post on to the Apocalypse Now! Fan club who tell me they are now reviewing your membership and that could lead to you having to send back your stickers.

 

[Several Puffins]

Secondly, I think the carrier shouldve opened fire on the police, carriers should defend their owners

C: your carrier won't kill cops and other NPC's and players just because they attacked your ship, but it won't shoot at its owner if they accidentally hit the carrier

Sure. I said it shouldn't shoot at you if you accidentally hit it at the top of my post. The rest pertains to the OP wanting help from the carrier against the police. Fine by me, but if we're trying for more verisimilitude, the authorities should be able to force a hostile carrier out of the system.

 

[sharp312]

Which in any realm is going to end badly, it would have been far simpler to stay in the carrier and move the carrier.


Yes, your way of playing was reckless, you wanted to make base in a hostile system, you wanted to fight the cops and finally you wanted to be able to accidentally shoot your (or the OP's) own Carrier and expect no consequences from it,.

It's not that your plan was foiled by the tools, it was that your plan was foiled by being the plan it was. It foiled itself.

The plan was foiled by a really poorly implemented anti-griefing system. Why did fdev make it so when you hit the pads you get shot? That implies that if you dont miss your target CMDR coming into land that you wont get shot? Shouldnt the anti-griefing mechanic engage when you actually start griefing? Not when you miss a couple shots on the person your griefing?