Solution to carriers congesting community goal areas

Would having decommissioned carriers removed from game and/or prevent carriers mooring in CG zones help?

Failing that, why not mothball the current persistent, mmo aspect of carriers and rework them into something which the game can handle? :)
 
That isn't simpler in the slightest. And no. It's a bad idea.
The point was to mitigate or better yet, eliminate unnecessary FC assets and their associated traffic in systems of interest.
The obvious goal being to improve the performance/lag etc associated with so many players and objects congesting the system.
No more efficient or effective way of getting Cmnder attention faster than hitting up their pocket books.

You a poor billionaire who doesn't want to lose all those hard earned credits you spent the last X weeks/months of your ED life grinding? Then DON'T CLUSTER F* CERTAIN SYSTEMS. Park in adjacent systems. Not exactly rocket science here 😂
 
The point was to mitigate or better yet, eliminate unnecessary FC assets and their associated traffic in systems of interest.
The obvious goal being to improve the performance/lag etc associated with so many players and objects congesting the system.
No more efficient or effective way of getting Cmnder attention faster than hitting up their pocket books.

You a poor billionaire who doesn't want to lose all those hard earned credits you spent the last X weeks/months of your ED life grinding? Then DON'T CLUSTER F* CERTAIN SYSTEMS. Park in adjacent systems. Not exactly rocket science here 😂
Here's a better idea. Have each individual fleet carrier appear as a signal source orbiting the selected planet only for the owner and their friends/squadron if they choose. That's it. You can jump somewhere and not see 5 thousand fcs everywhere and the mechanic is already in game as your carrier does appear as a signal source at it's target destination. It could be implemented with minimal effort and wouldn't break the game. Those that want to own a mobile store can enable that option for a fee.
 
No. I am way out exploring with my carrier, you raise the maint price sunstantially I will have to decommission because exploring doesn't bring in huge amounts of money, whereas players in the bubble have the opportunity to get much more, so what would happen is you would lose a lot of carriers that were presenting no issue at all, and end up keeping the carriers that are causing the problem.
I am not sure how much exploring You do per day, but myself on average of 50 systems fully scanned per day, can cash in in region of 150mil per week. my current weekly upkeep of FC is just shy of 14mil/week. Easy maths there.
 
I am not sure how much exploring You do per day, but myself on average of 50 systems fully scanned per day, can cash in in region of 150mil per week. my current weekly upkeep of FC is just shy of 14mil/week. Easy maths there.
Sure, now increase that maintenance to a value that will affect bubble players, maybe multiply it by 10!
 
Sure, now increase that maintenance to a value that will affect bubble players, maybe multiply it by 10!
In my humble opinion, if devs stuck to the original concept, they should have made FCs costs humongous, both aqusition and upkeep. If those where balanced in a way so that only way for a player to be able to access one would be to be a part of a squadron or a wing and they would have to work together to make costs managable, it would make far more sence.
Yes, I do have one, but if I was unable to pay for it the way it is now I would definitly engage other players to be able to have one. Like now for example, I am out exploring and having a carrier near by is really convenient, so I would defo organize few more people to go out with.
 
Why not just introduce a "parking fee" for the time a carrier spends in system?
No other carriers in system and no events happening in that system? Parking fee is 0. There are 20+ carriers in system and an event running? Parking fee is a couple of hundred million a week. Will work in the popular mining systems too and encourage carriers to move a little further out.

Those way out in the black with their carriers won't notice it, those in the bubble cramming into popular systems will.
This is an elegant suggestion, I like it! I had thought that maybe carriers should not be allowed into populated systems, just like they are currently not allowed into any system that requires a permit... this would force players to park in unpopulated systems nearby, thus reducing the liklihood that they will inconvenience anyone with their inevitable server lag. Again, this would not hurt explorers, way out in unpopulated space, so no problem there... however, it would make it very difficult for carriers to make any money via their Commodity Market, since there would be far less 'passing traffic' in an unpopulated system...

But if there was a parking fee, as you suggest, then it would be up to players to decide if they want to park in-system or not... rich or reckless players would be free to do so, but poor or sensible players will choose instead to park in an unpopulated system next door. There are plenty of unpopulated systems, even in the middle of the bubble, so this would always be a viable option...

...and if you DO choose to pay the 'parking fee', and park your carrier next to a Community Goal where lots of other players will see it, then making money via your Commodity Market would be viable too! With careful pricing, you might even be able to make a profit, in spite of the parking fee - but Frontier could set that parking fee high enough so that making a profit becomes a challenge, and the possibility of losing money is very real... thus creating a new high-stakes mini-game, for players who fancy their chances!

(And giving players the option to do something, with an attached credit sink, is always better than just not letting them do it at all.)
 
This is an elegant suggestion, I like it!
None of these are elegant solutions, because they are all proposals to "fix" the wrong thing.

These are all proposals to try and lower the number of carriers players put into a system - if FD wanted to do that, they could just do exactly that - they have a system to set the maximum carriers in a system (currently it'd tied to the number of parking spaces around planetary bodies - should be easy to place a max in a system limit too)

So, this would easily "solve" the problem people seem to think is there - too many carriers in a system.

But the thing is, that's not the problem (As per FD's design anyway)

The problem is, that large numbers of carriers in a system causes network issues which adversely affect entering super cruise in said systems.

This is commonly refereed to as a bug, and is not generally solved by changing the games design - but by fixing the underlying technical problem.

There is a supposedly fixed bug of this here.


There is another report here


I would advise going to this, voting, and adding your contribution to mention the carrier issue.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, there's a hard limit of around 255 "things" in a system: not including ships, but including planets, moons, and stations. And now Carriers too.

...So it's a bit odd that moving around in a system with 100 planets/moons and 155 Carriers is more difficult than in a system with 250 planets/moons, 3 stations, and 2 Carriers.
 
None of these are elegant solutions, because they are all proposals to "fix" the wrong thing.

These are all proposals to try and lower the number of carriers players put into a system - if FD wanted to do that, they could just do exactly that - they have a system to set the maximum carriers in a system (currently it'd tied to the number of parking spaces around planetary bodies - should be easy to place a max in a system limit too)

So, this would easily "solve" the problem people seem to think is there - too many carriers in a system.

But the thing is, that's not the problem (As per FD's design anyway)

The problem is, that large numbers of carriers in a system causes network issues which adversely affect entering super cruise in said systems.

This is commonly refereed to as a bug, and is not generally solved by changing the games design - but by fixing the underlying technical problem.

There is a supposedly fixed bug of this here.


I would advise people who can reproduce this bug in the current build to go any make a new report, or merge any current reports they can find together and get voting on it, instead of concocting convoluted and unnecessary resolutions to the wrong problem.
👆 This is entirely correct.
 
Top Bottom