Please don't lock huge capital/carrier ships to only groups.

It’s a bit moot now as carriers have been dropped from Q4.

personally I think this is down to the level of complexity required to cater for Solo/Small Groups/Large Groups requirements.
 
It’s a bit moot now as carriers have been dropped from Q4.
Not entirely moot, but we are looking at it being future content now (whether tied to future premium content or not is unknown).

personally I think this is down to the level of complexity required to cater for Solo/Small Groups/Large Groups requirements.
Perhaps, but such speculation is a bit moot. ;)
 
It’s a bit moot now as carriers have been dropped from Q4.

personally I think this is down to the level of complexity required to cater for Solo/Small Groups/Large Groups requirements.

That, or the dedicated servers they plan on adding as part of this "big project" means it's more sensible to add it in later :)
 
That, or the dedicated servers they plan on adding as part of this "big project" means it's more sensible to add it in later :)
Possibly just wishful thinking on your part - dedicated servers of the type you are eluding to would be a negative move IMO and totally unnecessary from a technical standpoint... but that is a topic for another thread.

I would be more inclined to take their statement on face value - there are things that are of more value to the wider community that could be developed for Q4 instead.

The dropping of ice planets but not the general graphical improvements wouid seem to imply there have been unexpected technical complications in one area or other wrt their originally planned content for Q4.
 
FD seem to have concerns about over-population of the universe with the larger ships. Personally, I believe it would not be an insurmountable issue to address - there are many different ways that particular cat could be skinned.

Overall though, I agree with your sentiment but I do not believe the carriers will be Farragut type vessels (or similar) nor do I expect them to be directly pilotable. I think they are more likely to be like the Thargoid emergency evacuation ships.

Overpopulation is plain impossible in Solo mode...

What a silly idea.
 
Overpopulation is plain impossible in Solo mode...

What a silly idea.
Depends on how they had planned to implement them, if they were planned to be done as generic cross-instance universe assets like mega-ships but with players deciding their location then the idea is not that crazy.

That approach though IMO would be the wrong way to go for such things, they may as well just give players the ability to relocate any mega-ship assets owned by the in-game NPC player faction they are affiliated with (assuming they have a mega-ship that is). The core issues would be fundamentally the same though.
 
As a solo faction owner and having received email updates pertaining to groups, I have some speculations as to how the carriers would work.

Still, given that they delayed Carriers, they'd better have a Farragut Skin planned. I don't care if that's premium content at this point. The current atmosphere of constantly delaying promised features in this industry is starting to grind on my nerves. And given how those delayed products usually turn out to be flops, it makes me apprehensive.

I originally founded the Hellrazer Expeditionary Force as a PMF of One. It required me to set up a recognized player group that was registered with Frontier in whatever database they had and there was a topic floating around that send me to all kind of easy to fill out forms. All they did was request a comfirmed email that would be considered the 'owner' of the group, reguardless of whether or not that email was shared between a leading 'council' or was primarily owned by a single leader. This email would be the point of communication to group related content.

Such as that debacle several months back where they actually used the email for it's intended purpose of communicating changes to player groups and a whole lot of people got butthurt about it feeling excluded when there was no reason for solo players who WERE NOT part of a player group to be bothered with something they weren't part of.

Following that, I was able to petition for a PMF to be put in the game. Again this PMF would be linked to the Player Group registered Email so they had a confirmed 'this is a real person we can talk to' link. After which it was up to me to keep an eye on my chosen systems and wait.

The HEF was added in about three months later surprising me as I had no advanced warning.

So as a player group of one, I had a PMF.

It's been a bit of a struggle to get the system under my full control and I've had to take a few breaks from the game. It seems to have attracted a number of players who've been using my rare agri world as a trading hub. I wouldn't be surprised if PP factions were basing themselves to use it for trade wars. I've noticed goverments and PP coverage shifting quite a bit since HEF seized control of our system.

So it's not impossible for Player Groups of One to exist.

I recently received yet another email relating to squadrons. This email was asking me if I would like to request reservation of a Squadron Name. Likely again because I already the registered 'Owner' email for a player group. I immediately locked down the Hellrazers as a squadron name as well as my choice of unique squadron tags.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a topic floating around here about how to register and reserve Squadrons for those wishing to Found their own Squandrons prior to launch. I think the email had a link so even now, those who want a Squadron of One can do so.

But here's how I see Carriers working.

In order to reserve a squadron, I had to prove I was a real account holder by logging onto the game and providing Frontier with a unique ID from the title screen. It was pretty easy to find thanks to picture instructions.

Whomever holds that account is now the Squadron Owner.

The Owner, should the Squandron decide to obtain one, will receive exclusive control over the carriers when they finally go live. By which when the Owner docks at the Squadron Carrier, they have an extra menu option to navigate the Carrier. At this point in time, likely the Carriers will have Witchspace drives. So the owner will only be able to jump the Carrier directly to known locations provided the Owner has Map data of the system.

It is also possible that members of the Squadron will have a 'beacon' they can activate that will ping the Squadron Owner and allow the Owner to lock onto the individual and Warp the Carrier to their location. It is also possible that the Owner will have an additional menu option onboard their ship to allow them to 'Summon' the carrier to their location.

At this point, the most the Owner will be able to do is navigate the carrier from point to point. It won't be pilotable as we known it. Whether or not it has any defenses to provide 'area denial' remains to be seen. It could also be entirely possible that the Carriers will be 'invisible' to anyone but the squadron with it's own separate instance. I doubt stations would take too kindly to having player carriers cluttering up their area of responsibility so Carriers won't be allowed within station instances. Or at least, Owners will be denied the ability to navigate/summon the carrier inside 7500m exclusion zone of a station.

Whatever the case may be, Squadrons will be owned by one player and the carriers will likely be linked to the Owner in some way. Councils will likely have to internally settle their own affairs over who is the Carrier Captain and decide internally over where the Carrier is going to be located.

To which end, I don't see the problem of locking Player Carriers to groups only. They're the ones that need it.

But I don't want Carriers to be restricted to large groups. Anyone can make a Squadron, even if it's a Squadron of one. And even those Squadrons should have access to Carriers. If they want to limit the number of ships a single commander can Station inside a carrier to a certain amount just like Stations only hold 35 or so player ships fine but one ship per player should not be so.

I know as soon as I get my Carrier, I'm going to be in deep space for months at a time doing what I envisioned my Player Group doing. Traveling the galaxy, meeting new aliens, and ether bringing them the Glory of the Federation... or killing them.

If Frontier wants players to spread out across the galaxy without having to do large scale colonization like Colonia, then we need access to reliable mobile bases.
 
The Owner, should the Squandron decide to obtain one, will receive exclusive control over the carriers when they finally go live.
Actually, I think this has been covered by the Squadron FAQs - my understanding is as per Guilds in GW/GW2 there will be a form of Squadron permission lists which can be used to allocate permissions to individuals based on rank with-in the Squadron. Amongst those allocable permissions would notionally be various things to do with the Carriers (when they are eventually released).

The carriers were always pushed as being owned by the relevant squadron too, the only thing people are disputing in this thread is really any attempt to impose a minimum size on squadrons in order for them to be able to acquire or maintain them.
 
The carriers were always pushed as being owned by the relevant squadron too, the only thing people are disputing in this thread is really any attempt to impose a minimum size on squadrons in order for them to be able to acquire or maintain them.

Fair enough. The topic title is a bit misleading I supposed.

I will reiterate that I see no problem with only Squadrons receiving Carriers but Squadrons of any size should get access to it.
 
Its not about that. Its about making the multiplayer part of this game work.

You want to have multiplayer assets. You do multiplayer things.

Giving the single player every aspect of the game really hurts group gameplay. Because you dont need to be in a group to experience that content.

Its a major problem in all corners of elite dangerous. Not just these carriers.

You do if you don't want to grind for what I assume are months. And the draw of multiplayer, is multiplayer. If the draw is just gameplay mechanics that are otherwise locked, than it's the most shallow form of encouraging multiplayer. If they are doing it just for the ship, then its a chore. Forcing player to do things they don't like is hardly good for the base. Not to mention only a select few will have control over the ship. So people who want to solo will have to make sizable "guilds" just to enjoy a feature that has nothing to do with other people save arbitrary standards.

I intend to play with a few of my friends, but to make it a requirement to enjoy parts of the game for solo players makes no sense. Again, if people want to play with others there should be things for them to do, they should do what they can to facilitate it. But to FORCE if with content locks is just a good way to turn people off, because those who want to form groups already will.
 
Top Bottom