Not a good move Frontier - Fleet Carrier upkeep

[Viajero]

Couldn't they just jump out anyway to avoid the damage?

If these things were immobile, then I could see it working. Not on a fleet carrier though.

They could indeed, part of the attack/defense gameplay, and probably a good result for those attacking Other FC teams would prefer to stay and fight etc.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

While it would have been entirely relevant in the event that Carriers had been gated to Squadrons of a particular size, it is indeed now irrelevant - as Fleet Carriers are personal rather than Squadron assets.

I don't think they should be gated to a squadron of a certain size any squadron should be allowed to have one, what they do with it would be up to them.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

They could indeed, part of the attack/defense gameplay, and probably a good result for those attacking Other FC teams would prefer to stay and fight etc.

Why would it be good for those attacking?

And it would still open up the possibility of FC ganking which I am not in favour of. What about when the owner is offline for a week or so. It just can't work like that.

 

[Viajero]

Why would it be good for those attacking?

Well, if a team is attacking a fleet carrier it would presumably be because they want it gone from that location in the first place.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well, if a team is attacking a fleet carrier it would presumably be because they want it gone from that location in the first place.

Maybe they are just ganking instead. What about if a commander is on holiday for a two weeks?

Where does the FC emergency jump to?

If its the nearest system, it can be followed and continuesly attacked. I don't think it's a good mechanic and can't see it working.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This issue here is that if FCs can be attacked and damaged they should be defendable by you. If someone attacks it in solo or a PG, then there is nothing you can do to stop it. So that really doesn't work and could be grossly unfair with people in private groups ganking FCs.

Not forgetting that players in Open could attack Carriers belonging to players who don't (or can't) play in Open....

I expect that the decision to make Carriers pan-modal resulted in them requiring to be indestructible.

 

[Viajero]

Maybe they are just ganking instead. What about if a commander is on holiday for a two weeks?

Where does the FC emergency jump to?

If its the nearest system, it can be followed and continuesly attacked. I don't think it's a good mechanic and can't see it working.

Good questions, if we focus this discussion to the areas where I would see it more useful and effective (BGS and PowerPlay) one of the options there would be to add a FC status flag that the FC owner can activate, much like when we enter PowerPlay. Let´s call it a "BGS active" or "PP active" flag.

- The FC would also be allowed to "align" with a specific minor fatcion or PP power.

- If the flag is not active then the FC works as currently proposed by FDEV, i.e. no attack/defense (or ganking) possible either.

- If the flag is active then the FC would confer an arbitrary X% bonus (say 5%, or 10%) to any BGS or PP related activity progress for the minor faction or Power it is aligned with and only within the system it is parked on.

- If the flag is active then the previous proposal for attack/defense would apply.

- Once the flag is active it can not be deactivated for a game cycle (i.e. one week etc)

- Emergency jump would be random, but FC owners can also jump manually using the required Tritium ammounts to wherever they desire.

I am sure all this can be tweaked etc to make it even more refined and properly cover all angles, but I am pretty sure it can work. It would require dev and designer time and resources though. And testing. And balancing.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Good questions, if we focus this discussion to the areas where I would see it more useful and effective (BGS and PowerPlay) one of the options there would be to add a FC status flag that the FC owner can activate, much like when we enter PowerPlay. Let´s call it a "BGS active" or "PP active" flag.

- The FC would also be allowed to "align" with a specific minor fatcion or PP power.

- If the flag is not active then the FC works as currently proposed, no attack/defense possible either.

- If the flag is active then the FC would confer an arbitrary X% bonus (say 5%, or 10%) to any BGS or PP related activity progress for the minor faction or Power it is aligned and only within the system it is parked on.

- If the flag is active then the previous proposal for attack/defense would apply.

- Once the flag is active it can not be deactivated for a game cycle (i.e. one week etc)

- Emergency jump would be random, but FC owners can also jump manually using the required Tritium ammounts to wherever they desire.

I am sure all this can be tweaked etc to make it even more refined, but I am pretty sure it can work. It would require dev and designer time and resources though. And testing.

So if there is no flag, does that make FCs indestructible?

If not, then it doesn't fix the problem of ganking a FC when owners are offline (sleeping) or on holiday.

Personally I can't see anyone putting the flag on as you can still help your faction without it.

 

[Viajero]

So if there is no flag, does that make FCs indestructible?

If not, then it doesn't fix the problem of ganking a FC when owners are offline (sleeping) or on holiday.

For the example I offered, yes, damage would only apply to those FC in BGS and PP active duty only (with that extra %X bonus). But we could also envision a similar kind of voluntary "active duty" in other areas .

The proposal does not make any distinction between ganking or any other kind of attack. But limits the gameplay proposal to those who willfully choose to be in active duty. Also presumably the fact a FC owner needs to actively flag it mean they are also actively involved and not in a holiday. It automatically mitigates the risk. Also remember the FC would still be non destructible and the consequences are capped. The "worst" it could happen is that services/capabilities in the FC would be temporarily impaired and would need to be repaired and restored. Also FC owners can deactivate the active status after the end of a cycle, so no repeated "ganking" is possible.

Personally I can't see anyone putting the flag on as you can still help your faction without it.

The flag would help a lot, with the %X bonus I mentioned above, that would be the main point of "active" duty. If you prefer not to risk an attack then do not use the flag, but then you do not get the benefit of the %X bonus on BGS and PP either.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

For the example I offered, yes, damage would only apply to those FC in BGS and PP active duty only (with that extra %X bonus). But we could also envision a similar kind of voluntary "active duty" in other areas .

The proposal does not make any distinction between ganking or any other kind of attack. But limits the gameplay proposal to those who willfully choose to be in active duty. Also presumably the fact a FC owner needs to actively flag it mean they are also actively involved and not in a holiday. It automatically mitigates the risk. Also remember the FC would still be non destructible and the consequences are capped. The "worst" it would happen is that services/capabilities in the FC would be temporarily impaired and would need to be repaired and restored.



The flag would help a lot, with the %X bonus I mentioned above, that would be the main point of "active" duty. If you prefer not to risk an attack then do not use the flag, but then you do not get the benefit of the %X bonus on BGS and PP either.

They had multiple delays on the FC. It must have gone through a couple of iterations. While I don't think they are super experienced with MP developing I think some conflict of design was discussed and it's now beyond any plans to redesign what they release in any large quantities. They'll tweak some cost and that's pretty much it.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

For the example I offered, yes, damage would only apply to those FC in BGS and PP active duty only (with that extra %X bonus). But we could also envision a similar kind of voluntary "active duty" in other areas .

Right, so would this damage be in addition to the upkeep or replace? It it's a replacement that means that there is zero upkeep for those that are not interested in BGS/PP and then we go back to the issue with unused FCs clogging up the game world as there is no mechanic to remove them.

The proposal does not make any distinction between ganking or any other kind of attack. But limits the gameplay proposal to those who willfully choose to be in active duty. Also presumably the fact a FC owner needs to actively flag it mean they are also actively involved and not in a holiday. It automatically mitigates the risk. Also remember the FC would still be non destructible and the consequences are capped. The "worst" it would happen is that services/capabilities in the FC will be temporarily impaired and would need to be repaired and restored.

But then you come to the issues where people accidentally left their flag on or off.

The flag would help a lot, with the %X bonus I mentioned above, that would be the main point of "active" duty. If you prefer not to risk an attack then do not use the flag, but then you do not get the benefit of the %X bonus on BGS and PP either.

It all depends on whether the benefits outweigh the cons.

I would be just worried that it ends up being too convoluted and complicated. I would prefer a system that can be used by anyone regardless of whether they are BGS/PPing.

 

[Viajero]

Right, so would this damage be in addition to the upkeep or replace? It it's a replacement that means that there is zero upkeep for those that are not interested in BGS/PP and then we go back to the issue with unused FCs clogging up the game world as there is no mechanic to remove them.

Well, the discussion about upkeep is a world of its own. Upkeep and active damage could probably coexist, but the fact damage is new can mean that upkeep costs can be further reduced and made more tolerable. Also remember the principle of "active duty" and associated potential damage could also probably be extended to other areas of the game, not just BGS and PP.

Proliferation or clogging is only part of the issue, although that would be relative to their impact in game more than the raw number of them. I think (I may be wrong) that the issue EVE devs saw with Titans probably has more to do with the principle of an asset with virtually zero, or very low, risk to be lost in the first place. That would indeed be a first in Elite FCs as no other player ship is invulnerable and no other ship exerts a game impact when you do not play.

But then you come to the issues where people accidentally left their flag on or off.

Well, we are getting there to even more and more extreme edge cases. Devs could ensure a big flashy icon appears in front of the player to remind him/her etc Jokes aside, the proposed system would reduce and mitigate most of those risks via several means:

• the proactive requirement for participation via flag activation (less prone to forget)
• The fixed time cycle (i.e. 1 week etc, which is decent time to remember if you forgot). Also if you FC is forced to emergency jump at the end of that week I am pretty sure you would notice
• The capped and limited consequences even if you forget (i.e. once your modules are down for repairs that is it, the FC is still non destructable) etc

It all depends on whether the benefits outweigh the cons.

Indeed, that would be part of the balancing and selection of the precise X%; but also, more importantly, part of the considerations and tradeoffs FC owners would need to decide on, fun!

I would be just worried that it ends up being too convoluted and complicated.

Maybe. But if you think about it the proposal main fetaures use already existing game elements and principles. The dev and design work involved is not negligeable though and as @Navigare Necesse Est says, we may very well be past the point FDEV can consider such a thing.

I would prefer a system that can be used by anyone regardless of whether they are BGS/PPing.

The same principle of active flag can used in any other areas non BGS or PP related. The active duty flag in those cases could mean an extra %X profit on top of any service fees paid by commanders using the FC services.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well, the discussion about upkeep is a world of its own. Upkeep and active damage could probably coexist, but the fact damage is new can mean that upkeep costs can be further reduced and made more tolerable. Also remember the principle of "active duty" and associated potential damage could also probably be extended to other areas of the game, not just BGS and PP.

Proliferation or clogging is only part of the issue, although that would be relative to their impact in game more than the raw number of them. I think (I may be wrong) that the issue EVE devs saw with Titans probably has more to do with the principle of an asset with virtually zero, or very low, risk to be lost in the first place. That would indeed be a first in Elite FCs as no other player ship is invulnerable and no other ship exerts a game impact when you do not play.



Well, we are getting there to even more and more extreme edge cases. Devs could ensure a big flashy icon appears in front of the player to remind him/her etc Jokes aside, the proposed system would reduce and mitigate most of those risks via several means:

• the proactive requirement for participation via flag activation (less prone to forget)
• The fixed time cycle (i.e. 1 week etc, which is decent time to remember if you forgot). Also if you FC is forced to emergency jump at the end of that week I am pretty sure you would notice
• The capped and limited consequences even if you forget (i.e. once your modules are down for repairs that is it, the FC is still non destructable) etc

Indeed, that would be part of the balancing and selection of the precise X%; but also, more importantly, part of the considerations and tradeoffs FC owners would need to decide on, fun!



Maybe. But if you think about it the proposal main fetaures use already existing game elements and principles. The dev and design work involved is not negligeable though and as @Navigare Necesse Est says, we may very well be past the point FDEV can consider such a thing.

Yeah. I can't see them adding that now. Maybe in the future. Personally I would like to see a manufacturing component added to Fleet Carriers. Depending on what type of manufacturing unit you install you could be creating/mining different commodities to create other commodities to sell to stations or other commanders that require them to create other commodities that are then sold to stations or other commanders to create modules that can hopefully be sold to other commanders or stations for a profit. Thus creating creating a real player driven economy that could also work with the BGS instead of replacing it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

has more to do with the principle of an asset with virtually zero, or very low, risk to be lost in the first place.

You mean as opposed to flying around in PG/solo in an Anaconda?

I'm not giving a damn about risk in FC. I don't want risk for the FC. I want a fleet carrier goddamnit, not something that will push me to grind, especially something that will push me to grind when i'm playing because i wasn't playing the game for some weeks or months.

I want to load up a FC, head off into the black, and do what i want, forge my own path, play my own way, relax, enjoy the sights, not mine for hours every time i want to make a jump.

 

[Viajero]

You mean as opposed to flying around in PG/solo in an Anaconda?

Yes. Even flying PG/solo you can lose the ship, any ship, in many different (and sometimes even painful) ways. Unlike FC.

I don't want risk for the FC

I understand. EVE devs or FDEV devs seem to see player asset invulnerability and no (or very low) risk for such large assets as Titans or FC in a different way that you do though, as something of a game design imbalance. Upkeep, and potential decomissioning, is just one way to help balance that.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You want a despawn mechanic, now how would that work, would it be if someone was offline for a number of months and it despawned. But that stops other options. What if a squadron member had it set up to be a squadron home for their squadron members and wanted it kept there while s/he went on a year long sabbatical to travel the world. In the current form, you can do that by prepaying the upkeep. With the despawn mechanic you can't.

You are now removing options for people by having a despawn mechanic.

Now that's an interesting point. But then, if people are doing that, then don't we have your concern about people clogging up FC slots in systems when they are not playing? Maybe people shouldn't be able to keep their FCs tying up a popular slot when they are not playing?

Personally though, i think that is a worthwhile loss in return for getting rid of offline loss.

I've seen nothing in your posts why offline money loss/gain is a bad thing.

As i said, personal opinion, that gaining or losing stuff while not playing a game is a bad thing. Gain encourages a kind of AFK play. Loss means some people feel punished for not playing.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

You mean as opposed to flying around in PG/solo in an Anaconda?

I'm not giving a damn about risk in FC. I don't want risk for the FC. I want a fleet carrier goddamnit, not something that will push me to grind, especially something that will push me to grind when i'm playing because i wasn't playing the game for some weeks or months.

I want to load up a FC, head off into the black, and do what i want, forge my own path, play my own way, relax, enjoy the sights, not mine for hours every time i want to make a jump.

Design philosophy isn't so much about fun with no strings attached in ED. Unless you grind a metaship and crush noobs because you can. FD tries to blow it out of the sky. Designs too big and adds too large price tags on the content to experience. Smaller, more frequent updates along to major gameplay releases would do the job much better than hoping overpowered gear hooks the players for longer. It doesn't. Hang the fruit too high and players won't bother. Happened with engineers and it will happen with FC too.

As i said, personal opinion, that gaining or losing stuff while not playing a game is a bad thing. Gain encourages a kind of AFK play. Loss means some people feel punished for not playing.

It's a disincentive to return to a game. Accrue some debt and it's like the job of Sysiphos - rolling a boulder up pointlessly.

 

[Viajero]

Hang the fruit too high and players won't bother. Happened with engineers and it will happen with FC too.

Not to disagree with what you say but, aren´t engineers actually quite widespread and popular?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Now that's an interesting point. But then, if people are doing that, then don't we have your concern about people clogging up FC slots in systems when they are not playing? Maybe people shouldn't be able to keep their FCs tying up a popular slot when they are not playing?

Personally though, i think that is a worthwhile loss in return for getting rid of offline loss.

I'm talking about unused FC. Obviously that FC is being used so it's not clogging up anything.

As i said, personal opinion, that gaining or losing stuff while not playing a game is a bad thing. Gain encourages a kind of AFK play. Loss means some people feel punished for not playing.

I don't think there will be much gain unless they add manufacturing to fleet carriers. But that will require input from the commander so it doesn't promote AFK play.

It's not a loss though. You are paying for a persistent object in the game. There is no punishment, it's just a consequence of owning a fleet carrier. You get one, you know you have to pay a weekly update online or not. That's a choice you have taken. You don't pay that upkeep, you know the FC will be taken away. Again that's a players choice to let that happen. That is not a punishment. Now if Fdev bans you from using a FC afterwards, that would be a punishment. But they don't, you can just buy another one as long as you have the credits.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I understand. EVE devs or FDEV devs seem to see player asset invulnerability and no (or very low) risk for such large assets as Titans or FC in a different way that you do though, as something of a game design imbalance. Upkeep, and potential decomissioning, is just one way to help balance that.

EVE Devs and Frontier seem to view quite a few things differently - player interactions being one - in that there's no need to play among players at all in E: D.