Deleted member 110222
D
I have a carrier. It's called a Coriolis.
I have a carrier. It's called a Coriolis.
Again you are not giving me any good reasons why they will be good for anything.
At the moment this is how I see it:
Exploration= Travel is too slow. Spending too much time having to restock with materials instead of exploring.
Bubble= Easier to dock at a a station.
So please, I am still waiting for the utility it will bring.
It does not have to be good for anything period.
One reason folks love ATS is that they have their own shop.
If I want one for nothing else than to park my ship at it and take a screenshot and video of my own little slice of space then that is good enough.
What is it with some ED players, "I want it this way, but not their way, their way is stupid and useless to me."
We will get what we get, but I don't care if you think whatever is useless, or cannot understand why anyone would want something you care less about.
The problem with space is that it's full of people, and people do not like to agree on very many things.
Awesome, I love the stations myself.
I have no issues with people having fleet carriers. I am just pointing out the uselessness of them. I doubt you will even be able to have your fleet there as I doubt they will have shipyard.
Now a personal base on a planet or asteroid I can get behind especially if it has a shipyard and you can store all your ships there.
But a fleet carrier that can carry one ship, the one you are flying seems utterly pointless and a load of development and server stressing for no real value.
Gotchya now, I misunderstood.
Link to relevant stream please?If there is a an effective cap on the number of carriers for practical network reasons (as was stated in a livestream), how would you go about reducing the availability of carriers, if not by limiting them to playergroups?
Or do you reject that there is any such limit?
You seem to be putting a lot of weight on the "carrier" aspect and ignoring the other aspects.But a fleet carrier that can carry one ship, the one you are flying seems utterly pointless and a load of development and server stressing for no real value.
Squadrons - no, no tangible benefits merely a method of improving group communication and organisation. No problems with squadrons in themselves.Not sure I would classify just 1 feature (Squadrons) being introduced for group play a "fundamental shift".
You seem to be putting a lot of weight on the "carrier" aspect and ignoring the other aspects.
Where development is concerned, it is a non-issue as it is being developed regardless - the point is not whether a given individual finds utility in it but that if someone does find utility and value in it they should have access.
As for server stressing, ED is not a client server architecture thus the ACTUAL server load should be minimal on a per carrier basis... based on my professional experience I would expect something akin to an XML record per carrier - complexity of that data depends on various factors depending on implementation decisions but it should not be anything like as bad as some seem to be expecting. In relation to network load, it seems more of an excuse than a legitimate technical reason.
A personal base on a planet should be largely the same thing in overall data/cpu load - the data and networking requirements should largely be the same if not lower for the carrier case.
Data wise there is (or atleast should be) fundamentally no (significant) difference - both have a location in space defined in terms of at least 3 parameters - the Carrier is not pilotable thus it is likely to be in a notionally stationary position in space relative to one body or another between ship movements (c/f NPC space based facilities).I am surprised that you can't see the difference between something that is static and something that moves with all you experience.
Data wise there is (or atleast should be) fundamentally no (significant) difference - both have a location in space defined in terms of at least 3 parameters - the Carrier is not pilotable thus it is likely to be in a notionally stationary position in space relative to one body or another between ship movements (c/f NPC space based facilities).
Even if they were pilotable, then the load would be no different to a player's own ship (which by necessity - or at least common sense - would be docked either at the carrier or elsewhere).
I am not surprised that some people may not appreciate the data requirement similarities.
We are not necessarily talking huge volumes of information here - and should not be.You are seeing this as one person owning a fleet carrier. Most could have multiple commanders or even 100s on when they jump. All information needs updating via the servers when the jump occurs on these ships. If there are hundreds of these fleet carriers then I am sure you can see the potential issues.
This is also a potential limit, which I believe is what was discussed on the live stream, about the maximum number of fleet carriers in a particular system. If, for example, there are 100+ fleet carriers in a one system (say, a CG system), then your navigational panel will be flooded with them. Not to mention a limit to how many can be in orbit around a particular body before they are too close together. Of course, this all assumes that Fleet Carriers will be visible to people that do not belong to the carrier's particular squadron.There are two potential points in play here - (a) cap on carriers in a given instance and (b) cap on carriers in general.
My point about Carriers per instance covers that one to at least some degree. They could control the numbers in one of two simple ways (a) first come first served population with a soft-cap which would be work-aroundable with Solo/PG mode (c/f GTA Online) or (b) Carrier owners joining a specific instance at a Carrier spawn point where their squadron's carrier resides (c/f ESO homes). There are also other ways this could be done without imposing hard limits on minimum squadron sizes or maximum numbers of carriers.This is also a potential limit, which I believe is what was discussed on the live stream, about the maximum number of fleet carriers in a particular system.
I respectfully disagree.
Buying and maintaining these huge fleet carriers should not be within the means of a single player.
The ease with which we can currently acquire expensive ships like the cutter and anaconda and corvette is already pushing it.
I have no stake in this.
I am a soloist myself, I will never do multiplayer, as a result I too should not be able to purchase and maintain a fleetcarrier.
I understood FDev was thinking about implementing a group based mechanic that is needed to enable the carrier to travel. If so then a solo player will not be able to effectively use a carrier.
I already think that flying larger ships without a minimum crew requirement is wrong.
In Elite II the python could not even take off without 7 crew on board. The Anaconda demanded 10, and the Panther had 15 crew.
I want that npc crew system back in the current game.
A carrier should definitely not be flyable by a single person.
I don't really see what a single player would get out of a fleet carrier other than,"look at my fleet carrier!".
In fact to make it viable for single player you would need to reduce the costs dramatically. This would effect the feeling of achievement that a group would get.
Who cares? If a single person is willing to grind the absurd amounts, let them. And stop comparing everything you do to other people. If someone else getting something it took and your friends a while to get makes it worse to you, then that's your problem. Massive squadrons will also get it much easier than small ones.
And I say: So what? Because some people getting annoyed someone else got something easier, or that something is "too easy" is nothing compared to a hard content block for many players.