Persistent fleet carriers and instancing

Muzz UK

Muzz UK
Question one:

Are fleet carriers a persistent instance when a CMDR logs off Elite Dangerous because we're told you can set permissions for others to go to your carrier. They might need to be because if CMDR A logs off whilst CMDR B is docked thats going to cause issues. Real immersion breaker if CMDR B is now floating in space or returned somewhere else.

Question two:

Assuming they are persistent have Frontier planned for the extra 5000-10000 instances and locations that are about to hit the background sim and galaxy? Will carriers only be visible on Navigation to friends and people with permission?

Question three:

The carrier offers services like repairs, shipyard and other facilities does CMDR A make money when CMDR B uses this services on his or her carrier?

Question four:

Are we right in assuming crime and punishment applies to said carrier then? does the carrier fall under law of whatever system it is in?
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
1: Carriers are indestructible so persistence is not an issue.

2: Instances are infinite, so I doubt much will change.

3: I doubt it.

4: I see these carriers as being mobile outposts, so yes they'll have some sort of C + P but no patrols.
 

CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost

C
I hope that all Fleetcarriers are visible in the same instance. It would certainly look very cool.

Hopefully we will be able to park FCs close to stations. Imagine a cargo hauling FC close to Hutton Orbital and the possibilities it creates for Hutton mug trade!

I hope that services doesn't result in the owner getting credits (unless a very good resupply and production economy for FCs is introduced and I somehow don't think this will happen).
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
There seems to be a "single carrier per instance" limit.

.... which might suggest that carriers cannot get close enough to stations to be in the same instance.
 

Bigmaec

Bigmaec
Robert Maynard said:
There seems to be a "single carrier per instance" limit.

.... which might suggest that carriers cannot get close enough to stations to be in the same instance.
Click to expand...
Which would fit with my hopes of "orbiting" carriers around choosable (is that a word?) locations like starports, planets and other POIs.

Do you have a quote on that single carrier per instance? I was looking in the news thread but couldn't find it. Would be handy in the next days I guess.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost said:
I hope that all Fleetcarriers are visible in the same instance. It would certainly look very cool.

Hopefully we will be able to park FCs close to stations. Imagine a cargo hauling FC close to Hutton Orbital and the possibilities it creates for Hutton mug trade!

I hope that services doesn't result in the owner getting credits (unless a very good resupply and production economy for FCs is introduced and I somehow don't think this will happen).
Click to expand...
Ye, cos parking right on the starbase entry totally wouldnt be a thing.
 

zimms

zimms
I think two filters would work quite well.

The nav panel could have options to show carriers of everyone/friends/squadron/wing/none.

And for carriers to show up at all, the owner has to activate a beacon and set its visibility to everyone/friends/squadron/wing/nobody.

No cluttering of systems and no problem with persistent carriers (apart from network/server related stuff).
 

Bigmaec

Bigmaec
zimms said:
I think two filters would work quite well.

The nav panel could have options to show carriers of everyone/friends/squadron/wing/none.

And for carriers to show up at all, the owner has to activate a beacon and set its visibility to everyone/friends/squadron/wing/nobody.

No cluttering of systems and no problem with persistent carriers (apart from network/server related stuff).
Click to expand...
Ah (y)
Filters is that thing I once used to deselect asteroid clusters and then promptly forgot.
 

MadDogMurdock

MadDogMurdock
Instances aren't really about locations, they're about players.

Q1: I expect that Fleet Carriers are static assets, effectively the same as Megaships with a 'fixed' location in a system, visible in all modes on all platforms.
Q2: There will not be any additional instances, because there are no additional players. When there are no players at a location (including the location of an FC), it only exists as a seed on FD's servers.
Q3: Anybody's guess
Q4: I expect it'll inherit the jurisdiction of wherever it is parked.
 

Kissamies

Kissamies
zimms said:
I think two filters would work quite well.

The nav panel could have options to show carriers of everyone/friends/squadron/wing/none.

And for carriers to show up at all, the owner has to activate a beacon and set its visibility to everyone/friends/squadron/wing/nobody.

No cluttering of systems and no problem with persistent carriers (apart from network/server related stuff).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hope the nav panel will at least have a carrier filter. Could be annoying to go to Sol or Shinrarta Dezhra and have the nav panel cluttered by all the carriers people have parked there and set free for visit.
 

Old Duck

Old Duck
MadDogMurdock said:
Q1: I expect that Fleet Carriers are static assets, effectively the same as Megaships with a 'fixed' location in a system, visible in all modes on all platforms.
Click to expand...
I hope so, since I'll never be able to afford one. I'd love to see a network of rich explorers willing to share their carrier services, because that would benefit me when I go out exploring sans carrier. Same goes with things like mining, etc. I'm hoping there's a "anybody can use my carrier" setting, since Squadrons have subdivided the community too much to be useful in this regards ( squadron-only access).
 

Snowymonk

Snowymonk
The one Fleet Carrier per instance may be a problem and will need more explanation from Frontier.

The statements I have seen so far (Announcement Video, Obsidian Ant's commentary, Reddit, this forum) appear to have either conflicting or mis-leading information regarding instancing.

I have seen that it is either 'one fleet carrier per instance' or 'one fleet carrier per system'.
I think that this my be missed in the comms, deliberately vague so that Frontier can tweak it once they have the feedback or just not completely thought through yet.

I understand the logic of a single Fleet carrier in an instance. It avoids potential ganking, location contention and player confusion (which Fleet Carrier do I land on???).
Where I would like clarification is how exclusive is that exclusion?

As a workable example, If I manage to get my Fleet Carrier to Shinrata Dezhra, it would be fair to say that I now have it present in either Solo, Private Group or Open. Whichever group I log into, it is there.

The follow-up question would be where in a system can I park my Fleet Carrier?
Do they all jump to the Nav Beacon (or equivalent) location in a system or are you able to select the body within a system that you jump into?
Inter-system SuperCruise is highly unlikely as a Fleet Carrier doesn't have a cockpit per se and would potentially be hosting other commanders so can't low-wake within a system
I think that it gets very close to immersion breaking if Frontier allow multiple Commanders to park at the same location. Incoming ships will probably be able to see my Fleet Carrier on the Nav panel and lock onto it from SuperCruise so that they drop out in the correct instance but if there are two or three Fleet Carriers orbiting the same location, how would separation be gained?
As a Fleet Commander, would you able to chose which system body you will orbit and if there is a commander already there, is the ship randomly assigned light year distance from the body? I don't think that it would make game sense if all Fleet Carriers in a system are the same distance away from a body, effectively on top of each other. Jumping from one Fleet Carrier to another 0 light seconds away seems strange to me.

If possible, a maximum of one Fleet carrier per stellar body would be a practical approach to Fleet Carrier separation (chosen at the time of jump)
 

Bigmaec

Bigmaec
Snowymonk said:
The one Fleet Carrier per instance may be a problem and will need more explanation from Frontier.

The statements I have seen so far (Announcement Video, Obsidian Ant's commentary, Reddit, this forum) appear to have either conflicting or mis-leading information regarding instancing.

I have seen that it is either 'one fleet carrier per instance' or 'one fleet carrier per system'.
I think that this my be missed in the comms, deliberately vague so that Frontier can tweak it once they have the feedback or just not completely thought through yet.

I understand the logic of a single Fleet carrier in an instance. It avoids potential ganking, location contention and player confusion (which Fleet Carrier do I land on???).
Where I would like clarification is how exclusive is that exclusion?

As a workable example, If I manage to get my Fleet Carrier to Shinrata Dezhra, it would be fair to say that I now have it present in either Solo, Private Group or Open. Whichever group I log into, it is there.

The follow-up question would be where in a system can I park my Fleet Carrier?
Do they all jump to the Nav Beacon (or equivalent) location in a system or are you able to select the body within a system that you jump into?
Inter-system SuperCruise is highly unlikely as a Fleet Carrier doesn't have a cockpit per se and would potentially be hosting other commanders so can't low-wake within a system
I think that it gets very close to immersion breaking if Frontier allow multiple Commanders to park at the same location. Incoming ships will probably be able to see my Fleet Carrier on the Nav panel and lock onto it from SuperCruise so that they drop out in the correct instance but if there are two or three Fleet Carriers orbiting the same location, how would separation be gained?
As a Fleet Commander, would you able to chose which system body you will orbit and if there is a commander already there, is the ship randomly assigned light year distance from the body? I don't think that it would make game sense if all Fleet Carriers in a system are the same distance away from a body, effectively on top of each other. Jumping from one Fleet Carrier to another 0 light seconds away seems strange to me.

If possible, a maximum of one Fleet carrier per stellar body would be a practical approach to Fleet Carrier separation (chosen at the time of jump)
Click to expand...
Wild speculation: they are only visible if landing rights are granted.
 

Snowymonk

Snowymonk
Tharrn said:
Or you can dock and refuel but not log out while in/on a Carrier you don't own.
Click to expand...
not sure how that would work.
What is preventing you from logging out?

There are plenty of current example of forced log-outs at the moment (power cut, internet drop, combat Log, server outage...)
I am not sure how Frontier would be able to prevent a Commander logging out whilst docked.
 

Snowymonk

Snowymonk
Bigmaec said:
Wild speculation: they are only visible if landing rights are granted.
Click to expand...

Absolutely rampant speculation (discussion even). :cool:
I hadn't thought about docking access rights.

I don't think access rights will change the underlying problem though.
I would suspect (speculate) that access requests will only be placed / checked once you are in the instance on the Fleet Carrier.
You would still have an overlapping location problem if two commanders both grant you access and are both based around the same body.

I further speculate that the December update will be rolled out on Tuesday 24th December so 123 days to work out the answers
 

Brrokk

Brrokk
Snowymonk said:
The one Fleet Carrier per instance may be a problem and will need more explanation from Frontier.
...
Click to expand...

I guess that a carrier will appear in supercruise as a signal source which we can drop into. That will put us in normal space with the carrier alongside, just like for a megaship. There would then never be any call for multiple carriers or carriers plus a station in an instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom