General Missions to damage FC

[SergMx]

Add missions to destroy turrets and various FC damage to disable all kinds of services.

The owner of the FC can always dock with his own FC and repair it.
(if I'm not mistaken, you can do it remotely through the FC menu.)
Having spent more credits on repairs.

If the FC is in a safe system and you are loyal to the fraction in the system then you will get more protection ships flying around and it is difficult to damage the FC.

 

[Stabby_Dave]

I doubt many CMDRs would be happy to have paid 5bn cr only to have their carrier repeatedly ganked to hell.

 

[Rubbernuke]

FCs are concept salad: you can get hostile and have security and ATR attack your carrier and your carrier attack them, but neither can damage each other. Having players be able to damage FCs would make that disparity even worse.

Although I'd love the idea of FCs being hackable (to nick stuff) vulnerable to attack it won't happen- the whining would go to 11. However it would also mean that players would have to 'hide' FCs or risk them being in popular places, so its not all bad.

 

[SergMx]

I doubt many CMDRs would be happy to have paid 5bn cr only to have their carrier repeatedly ganked to hell.

1. There was already experience with burning stations.
2. If there is money for the purchase and maintenance of FC, why can't you pay for the repair as well? FC will be destroyed only to a certain extent.
3 If you are loyal to the system with high security think it will be easy to fight with several law enforcement forces ?
4. Still need to define it all the same stations or ships ?

 

[SergMx]

FCs are concept salad: you can get hostile and have security and ATR attack your carrier and your carrier attack them, but neither can damage each other. Having players be able to damage FCs would make that disparity even worse.

What do you mean attacked by the ATR ?
That is it is normal to bring FC into a hostile system and hang over any planet ?

And anyway, I see a bunch of green patrol ships near my FC. Why are they here?

If I am wanted, I will fly to my FC where I want and I have nothing to do. Probably no one knows whose FC it is.

 

[Rubbernuke]

2. If there is money for the purchase and maintenance of FC, why can't you pay for the repair as well? FC will be destroyed only to a certain extent.

It would actually be quite cool to have a gunnery officer who reports hostiles (who attacked, was destroyed), as well as a repair team who you keep stocked with repair materials.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What do you mean attacked by the ATR ?
That is it is normal to bring FC into a hostile system and hang over any planet ?

If you get hostile to the faction in charge, the security around your ship will shoot you on sight, and if ATR are there they remain persistent and will appear even if you log off. So you have this great light show where both sides do no damage

Its normal if you are doing BGS work, especially murder.

 

[SergMx]

So you have this great light show where both sides do no damage

It's not okay. Even in the CZ, the NPC. can destroy the spike capital.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's not okay. Even in the CZ, the NPC. can destroy the spike capital.

Its quite annoying, but not unfixable.

In such a situation if you had a lot of repair materials you could then have your repair teams keep on repairing the attack damage, and that once these materials run out your carrier retreats (free of charge tritium wise) to a 'safe' system automatically.

FCs are nonsensical now, but with rule tweaks you can get them to be a bit more vulnerable. My suggestion though is not to link them to the BGS, because FCs are supposed to be separate, and use the security around the ship as a gameplay enhancer.

 

[ZAKALWEINC8876]

Burn them all, clogging up everywhere like leftover takeaway containers...
It takes ages to find the bloody nav beacon!

FC Vanity Project
FC Amusing Name
FC Not So Amusing Name
FC F*****
FC HMS Boaty McBoatface
FC Whatever
FC ........
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
NAV BEACON (huzzah!)

FD made a money pit for everyone who wanted one, but then gave everyone a superfast growing magic money tree so all the pits filled up and overspilled.

Imo.

o7

 

[Rubbernuke]

Burn them all, clogging up everywhere like leftover takeaway containers...
It takes ages to find the bloody nav beacon!

FC Vanity Project
FC Amusing Name
FC Not So Amusing Name
FC F*****
FC HMS Boaty McBoatface
FC Whatever
FC ........
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
NAV BEACON (huzzah!)

FD made a money pit for everyone who wanted one, but then gave everyone a superfast growing magic money tree so all the pits filled up and overspilled.

Imo.

o7

How about this?

FLEET CARRIERS: Variable upkeep based on location [Parking tariffs for giant spacecraft]

There is a problem with FCs in that systems could get, how we say, rammed with carriers like a pre COVID Saturday town centre. Its possible places could be strategically blocked or shipyards have problems. A possible solution powered by caffeine : Why not make fleet carrier upkeep based on (or...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I always wanted the reverse for FCs too:

Carriers: make them uber as people want, but with significant Megaship like flaws

How about: Upping jump range x 4 to 2000Ly per jump, giving them UC, and no upkeep and lower spooling time to 10 minutes, but with the following: They can be hacked for fuel (set % per tick) and cargo? If the fuel goes below a certain % services go down, until at 0% you can't move. In short...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Jmanis]

No. Instancing means it's impossible to defend your FC.

 

[SergMx]

Its quite annoying, but not unfixable.

In such a situation if you had a lot of repair materials you could then have your repair teams keep on repairing the attack damage, and that once these materials run out your carrier retreats (free of charge tritium wise) to a 'safe' system automatically.

FCs are nonsensical now, but with rule tweaks you can get them to be a bit more vulnerable. My suggestion though is not to link them to the BGS, because FCs are supposed to be separate, and use the security around the ship as a gameplay enhancer.

I don't see why you should back down ? Let it weigh, destroy and burn with the services off.

By the way, as an option if the system is loyal, it can send not only security ships but also repair ships. Let the people destroy the FCs and the NPC to fix them

 

[Robert Maynard]

1. There was already experience with burning stations.

Players can't damage stations (a decision made long ago) - nor do they own them. That they choose to repair them is their own choice - the need for repair was not instigated by other players.

2. If there is money for the purchase and maintenance of FC, why can't you pay for the repair as well? FC will be destroyed only to a certain extent.

Incurring losses to players who aren't necessarily playing at the time might be "fun" for some players - I doubt that very many would find it "fun" to find that their Carrier kept being attacked by other players, in any game mode, "for reasons".

 

[SergMx]

No. Instancing means it's impossible to defend your FC.

I blew up settlements but for some reason someone was repairing them. Who could it be ?

 

[SergMx]

Players can't damage stations (a decision made long ago) - nor do they own them. That they choose to repair them is their own choice - the need for repair was not instigated by other players.

Incurring losses to players who aren't necessarily playing at the time might be "fun" for some players - I doubt that very many would find it "fun" to find that their Carrier kept being attacked by other players, in any game mode, "for reasons".

I thought it was a suggestion section. Didn't it?

You fly to the SuperCruize in anarchy and decide to go for coffee? Can't your ship be intercepted?

 

[Jmanis]

I blew up settlements but for some reason someone was repairing them. Who could it be ?

.... the instancing? That's literally what's happening. You blow up power plants change instance and they're instantly repaired, because it's a new instance with no memory of the last.


So... are you proposing attacking FCs with absolutely no effect on anyone else?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I thought it was a suggestion section. Didn't it?

Of course - and not all players will necessarily agree with the suggestion.

You fly to the SuperCruize in anarchy and decide to go for coffee? Can't your ship be intercepted?

Not when logged out of the game, no.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No. Instancing means it's impossible to defend your FC.

That depends. FCs have excellent guns.

The variables for an FC would be:

-tritium

-stored goods

FCs should be hackable, so you can steal cargo, meaning its a risk to keep an FC so close to a public place. It might make FCs disperse more, or make them more of an asset to keep an eye on for squadrons.

 

[SergMx]

Because the ship can be completely destroyed if it stays in the game.

I'm not suggesting we blow up the FC completely, but only partially damage it. So that the man who owns the FC knows that if he left it in enemy territory, it will cost him, not to leave it anywhere he wants.

Even now you should always pay for FC even if you are offline. Why not increase this amount if your FC is on enemy territory?

Again, other players (friends or not) can also help fix the FC. Remember what happened to the burning stations ?