I kinda wanted to explore, not shoot rocks
Remove UPKEEP, but make carriers destructible
- Thread starter Vandaahl
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Opinions vary on the necessity to make the game more dangerous for all players.
The horse entered the discussion when the proposal to allow players to damage pan-modal Carriers was made.
By the way, is it possible to mothball your carrier?
If for instance you know you won't be able to play for a while.
or: got bored and want to not play for a while.
If for instance you know you won't be able to play for a while.
or: got bored and want to not play for a while.
Quantify "danger"...because what you find acceptable danger others would not.
No, its either all the way in 24/7, or nothing at all.
Then that's bananpeanutbutterfruitloopy insane.
Which is what I think is the main issue for most, not upkeep per se.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Also, danger is an entirely relative term: the combat optimised ship faces little from a trade or exploration optimised ship.
I was no longer discussing the damaging of carriers specifically but the necessity of more risk in the game, that the OP is trying to address. Once again you’re injecting your toxicity where it wasn’t needed.
The FSS was worse. Damn dude, why did you have to bring that up
So yeah, pewing carriers anyone?
Exactly my point.
I'm reminded of the kids in the Bugatti's bouncing off the fences of the Nurnurgring and doing fast times, whereas I'd be in an Elise on road tyres having a LOT more fun. (Bugatti=Engineered combat ship)
It's in my contract.The FSS was worse. Damn dude, why did you have to bring that up
Yeah, superbad idea. Will cause more babysitting than upkeep does
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Merely offering a different opinion as to what the game "needs" - as different players rather obviously want different things from the game.
Yes, but the station guns are a little more effective since then. So long as the carrier has lots of hit points so it would take a dedicated group at least several hours to do it (and a lot of rebuys in the process). Thargoids couldn't destroy the Gnosis and that was sat still for a good while.
Basically, everyone goes boom at some point (attackers much more than the carrier).
Are you offering an opinion as to what it needs or are you just being pedantic and instigating. Because your original reply to me definitely did not offer an opinion, but most definitely did try to instigate the dead horse.
Exactly!!!
I'm, not against upkeep btw. These things are powerful tools, an I hope FD doesn't start giving these things away.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The original reply added another thing that the game "is" to the quoted list.
The opinion offered is that not all players will benefit from arbitrarily increasing the global risk posed by the game. Especially when some of those players who complain of a lack of risk have gone out of their way to mitigate it by engineering their ship to be resilient.
Destructible FC would insure you see very few of them in game, and not for very long when you do. By August I suspect most carriers purchased in June will already be abandoned without them being destructible. I abandoned mine in the Beta on the third day when I realized I would have to jump back to a FC shipyard system to rebuy limpets and heatsinks.
There are a ton of simple ways to increase risk to oneself inside the game at their leisure, without enforcing those same risks upon other players. Don't engineer, use downsized shield generators, etc.
There are a ton of simple ways to increase risk to oneself inside the game at their leisure, without enforcing those same risks upon other players. Don't engineer, use downsized shield generators, etc.
Last edited:
I have to say I'm surprised that even carriers managed to pop up the good ole PvP prayer wheel debate.
Could’ve just said that originally and saved me, and you, your stupid song and dance you like to pull. Being more forthright is a good thing, and brevity is the soul of wit.