![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Weren't they spending that time working on the 'new era'?
Fleet carriers are going to be a year late. They're not going to be a year better
Please reconsider fleet carriers for solo players.
- Thread starter CMDR Karrde Sun
- Start date
- Status
Weren't they spending that time working on the 'new era'?
Fleet carriers are going to be a year late. They're not going to be a year better
Brilliant questions. I don't think there's answers to any of those within the current rules of the sandbox.
They did mention the intention was utility and support for existing activites, so there's probably going to be some epic god handing on release. Should be interesting to see what they come up with. They also said there was going to be an upgrade system, hopefully that isn't purely cosmetic (the only thing they hinted at last year).
Agreed, but I felt it might be worth laying down some markers.
As a Solo player I don't think FCs are for me, but they do have the potential to seriously (and negatively) impact my gameplay. So I'm keen to flag some of these things for FD to think about. At the same time, I think Solo players - or players who play alone in Open - should be aware of some of the issues.
Time will tell!
I don't see that. I see one type of Carrier, and yes, soloists will see them too. But here's a more interesting question:
If said carrier is visible to a solo player, who happens to be a member of a squadron, specifically, the squadron that operates said carrier, will they be able to utilize it as would squadron members in Private Groups or in Open?
Will this affect the capacity of a carrier? What is the capacity of a carrier for that matter?
On a not-directly-related note, I have to voice a certain level of disgust with those who keep clamoring about "Open Only" anything. This selfish, self-serving attitude is repugnant to me. Your "content" is no more important or less important than anyone else's content. You are no more or less important than anyone else, regardless of what your egos may tell you.
Elite has been an exceptionally spectacular game because it has not, since its inception, catered to or favored one mode of play over another. Trying to change this simply because it's what you want is contemptible at best. If the equality between modes should be lost, I fear for the future of the game, as a vast population of the player base will very likely be lost as well, and I've little doubt that Frontier is intelligent enough to realize this - so ditch the selfish agenda and let the notion of "Open Only" anything die the death it deserves.
I wouldn't mind at all If it's for live squadrons only in open and pg.
Squadron only carriers jumping into locked Thargoid areas to attack their bases.
Even better if chances are high the entire squadron is destroyed.
Who wants to live for ever?
Squadron only carriers jumping into locked Thargoid areas to attack their bases.
Even better if chances are high the entire squadron is destroyed.
Who wants to live for ever?
Maybe you are thinking Fleet Carriers are going to be something different from what FD are likely to deliver?
1) Squadrons can already turn up in force simply by jumping into a system. What difference does it make if they make a planned jump aboard a carrier or just do it from their own ships? FCs will probably be cross mode.
2) They probably will be persistant and not destroyable. It will work the same as if they dock at any station then log off. Or drop into a signal source and log off. Or simply drop out of SC and log off. I don't even drop out, just log off. I guess FCs will sit in their own signal sources. If you can make it to your FC you can certain make it anywhere else to log off.
3) Either a credit cost, like a guild charging its members for services but perhaps at a reduced rate or maybe you need to provide the stocks for the services yourself? Either could work.
4) I can imagine there will be a limited shipyard simply like we have limited shipyard storage with stations. I presume this will be on a per player basis otherwise the largest groups might have problems. I guess there will be more than enough slots per player to allow you to bring a selection of ships for different roles.
5) Actually i'm hoping they do have a UC contact. It will be a nice transformation to exploration and encourage group exploration in FCs.
6) Capital ships or carrier, as i said earlier, i presume they will be in their own signal sources anyway. I doubt you will be able to drop them inside CZs. They might have weapon defenses, in case someone breaks the law inside their area. Maybe they will have megaship mechanics whereby people can make raids against them to steal data or whatever, but those will likely be just like megaships, last person leaves the instance, everything resets.
Now, while i haven't used words like "must" like you have, i think based on FD's history of developing the game, its quite likely how things will be, with possibly some things wrong and maybe FD will add some features to FCs that i think they won't.
Agreed. No issues there.
Agreed. This is also my guess.
Possibly a commodity need or materials. That would be my guess.
This is one I doubt. If FDev wanted us to be able to move our own personal fleets around all the other moveable megaships would have a shipyard and so would the Gnosis.
It's a possibility. Not too sure about it though.
Agreed.
Yup. We shall see what happens.
And, there is the reason I probably won't get one. I suspect the lack of a shipyard/outfitting will kill the attraction of one pretty fast, as well.
I think they will certainly have outfitting, but just no modules for sale, you can transfer them over though, it's the shipyard that I suspect not.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that no game features are Open-only, why would it be expected that Squadrons would break that mould?
If Carriers only appear in instances where members of the owning squadron are present (which is the most reasonable way of impelementing them), others won't see a ship "disappear" when it docks with its Carrier. If you're not in the instance, you won't see either the ship or the Carrier. If you are in the same instance as the ship, you will see the Carrier too. In Solo, you will never see anyone else's Carrier: in PG, you will only ever see Carriers owned by members of your PG. And as PG's will need to be catered for, Carriers will never be "Open only" (and as Solo players can create a PG of one, a ban on Solo would be pointless). In Open, you will only see the Carriers of players you are instanced with, not "hundreds", even at popular locations.
Adding UC to a Carrier isn't a big deal, as explorers can carry an unlimited amount of cartographic data anyhow, so they don't need to "run back to the Bubble" to sell it and free up space for more. Space is big, so the ability to cash in sooner rather than later will very rarely lead to loss of first-discovery tags. It provides a backup in case of ship destruction, and a way of seeing your progress rather than waiting ages to see your tags. It would also allow exporers to publicly report an interesting find almost immediately, rather than having to keep it a secret for days/weeks/months to avoid poaching of first-discovery tags.
The force-multiplier argument for BGS work is something I hope FDev will consider, if they try to impose a minimum squadron size for a Carrier. If Squad A is twice the size of Squad B, and A is entitled to a Carrier but B is not, and the Carrier makes the squadron twice as effective in a given operation, then suddenly A is four times as effective as B and gains an unfair advantage.
Adding UC to a Carrier isn't a big deal, as explorers can carry an unlimited amount of cartographic data anyhow, so they don't need to "run back to the Bubble" to sell it and free up space for more. Space is big, so the ability to cash in sooner rather than later will very rarely lead to loss of first-discovery tags. It provides a backup in case of ship destruction, and a way of seeing your progress rather than waiting ages to see your tags. It would also allow exporers to publicly report an interesting find almost immediately, rather than having to keep it a secret for days/weeks/months to avoid poaching of first-discovery tags.
The force-multiplier argument for BGS work is something I hope FDev will consider, if they try to impose a minimum squadron size for a Carrier. If Squad A is twice the size of Squad B, and A is entitled to a Carrier but B is not, and the Carrier makes the squadron twice as effective in a given operation, then suddenly A is four times as effective as B and gains an unfair advantage.
Apologies... a poor choice of words on my part. I certainly didn't mean it to read like a list of demands, more like thinking out loud about some of the little-discussed aspects of carriers.
Understood.
Just docked at Foster Terminal (Colonia). It's a "Flight Operations Carrier", with full facilities. It is parked in a gas giant ring, so materials are not a problem. It has a shipyard, so ship transfer works.
So, a full facility carrier isn't impossible. We simply don't know what Frontier will do.
So, a full facility carrier isn't impossible. We simply don't know what Frontier will do.
Does it move around or does it stay there?
Maybe that could be one of the upgrades that owners can aspire to as progression.
I don't know all the details to fleet carriers, but despite this, I'd vote NO on a fleet carrier for solo players. Not sure my reasons are sound or if it would even be possible to enforce, but that's my stance on that.
- Status