Solution to carriers congesting community goal areas

[LanceLord]

How does increasing prices improve performance? I don't get the correlation.

Well taking a wild shot at this. Seems the OP might be inferring a cause and effect. Increasing carrier overhead O&M will likely affect the "poorer" FC owners (ones who're only worth 1-2 billion net v. the 5% or less 10 billion+ FC owners). So if you ramp up the O&M FC cost, that may encourage the majority of the FC owners to park and loiter their FCs elsewhere (i.e. preferably outside the system). Which in turn, would reduce player congestion/traffic and greatly improve the game performance.

Or something like that.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

Here's a radical idea. Make them NOT persistent.

 

[askavir]

Those amounts of players are distributed in thousands of separate instances, while the carriers are in every single instance. I think therein lies the problem.
Just make CG systems permit locked for the duration of the CG. At least until FC problem gets solved.

Well assuming that is the underlying cause, they could start by making the carriers without public docking access not persistent across all instances (except for their owner of course), that would probably cover 80 or 90% of all carriers. If a carrier is "private", then there is no need for it to exist in any other instance except the owner instance.

Anyway, I thought this issue had ben fixed in the last patch (it was in the patch notes at least), this is the first time anyone complains about this issue in quite a long time now. Perhaps the OP just had temporary networking issues and we're all chasing wild geese here?..

 

[Zieman]

Well assuming that is the underlying cause, they could start by making the carriers without public docking access not persistent across all instances (except for their owner of course), that would probably cover 80 or 90% of all carriers. If a carrier is "private", then there is no need for it to exist in any other instance except the owner instance.

Yes, a sensible approach. Wish FDEV would adopt it.

 

[Old Duck]

The issue according to the OP, is some kind of network related thing, potentially, which can cause people to be unable to shift from normal space to super cruise, due to a large number of carriers being present in the system.

The UI/UX issue is entirely different, and while I agree with you it needs to be resolved in a satisfactory way - the actual game function destroying issue (rather than a valid, but only UI related issue) is something which requires fixing for the game to function, rather than for it to be nicer to play.

Yeah, I get all of that. The assumption is that this is fixable. I suspect it isn't as easy as it sounds without a major rewrite of the database that tracks fleet carriers and sends that data to players when they enter a system. Hence my original suggestion, which will work to fix all these issues.

 

[alexzk]

Dumb solution is make carriers "no mass", so they don't break SC.
Proper solution is, system authorities should issue warning and blockade or regulations new incoming carriers when there are too many of them there to fly proper. So people will realize it is too slow to park so many carriers close.
For example carrier owner could be denied to dock for 10 mins on all stations if his carrier does a problems.

 

[varonica]

Here's a radical idea. Make them NOT persistent.

Impossible under the current model.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

Impossible under the current model.

Why?

 

[Drelthar]

Yeah, I get all of that. The assumption is that this is fixable. I suspect it isn't as easy as it sounds without a major rewrite of the database that tracks fleet carriers and sends that data to players when they enter a system. Hence my original suggestion, which will work to fix all these issues.

Will it?

It might fix the problem of having an annoyingly long list of carriers in your left panel - but would it fix the entering super cruise problem?
The entering super cruise problem would likely still exist, as you'd have to be able to toggle the filter on and off, and they are unlikely to make it so that it doesn't load anything in if you have the filter on, then loads it all when you toggle it off - that'd give a delay at a point that's not a "loading state" (super cruise transition) which is where they put these delays.

So while I agree with your idea (filer for carriers except your own in the nav panel) I don't think this would solve whatever issue is causing the super cruise transition problem.

I'm also not sure the database would need to be re-written, more, the method used to access/transmit the data, but this is entirely speculative, just seems that a data base is pretty much a database, a list of stuff - it's how you access that that would seem to be the issue here.

 

[Drelthar]

Dumb solution is make carriers "no mass", so they don't break SC.
Proper solution is, system authorities should issue warning and blockade or regulations new incoming carriers when there are too many of them there to fly proper. So people will realize it is too slow to park so many carriers close.
For example carrier owner could be denied to dock for 10 mins on all stations if his carrier does a problems.

What?

The OP is on about a problem where you just cannot get into super cruise, because you get stuck in the "blue tunnel" when trying to swap into the super cruise instance.
I don't think this has much to do with the mass of the carriers, just their existence, and the need to grab the data.

 

[varonica]

Impossible under the current model.

Because of the way Fleet Carriers are inserted into the game, they would need to change the entire system. Currently FC's use the same systems as stations, they are inserted into the galaxy database at the same level, they are in fact stations in all but name. The only way to make them non-persistent would be to place them in as a subset to the CMDR so that they appeared and disappeared when the CMDR logged in and out, and I suspect that would mean that a lot of things we currently do with FC's wouldn't be possible, just other CMDRS docking on your FC would be extremely difficult to manage using that model.

 

[GroG79]

... I have two, and I tend to park them ...

There is another problem...

 

[ebbrell]

Weird, I have no issues entering supercruise

 

[Northpin]

There are 20000 systems in the bubble and only Inara is listing more than 13000 carriers.
They have to park somewhere

 

[Shazroth]

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.

 

[alexzk]

Why not just introduce a "parking fee" for the time a carrier spends in system?

It's called upkeep. No need for extra bugged fee.

 

[cmdr borschtl]

There are 20000 systems in the bubble and only Inara is listing more than 13000 carriers.
They have to park somewhere

thank god they are as cheap as they are!

The funny thing is also how the carriers now put a soft cap on the number of players the game could support so let's hope it doesn't get any more popular than it already is so we can actually keep playing it.

 

[LanceLord]

Here's a radical idea. Make them NOT persistent.

Here's an even simpler and more radical idea.

Charge FC Cmnders 4M credits per server hour. Automatically deducted from said Cmnder's bank balance for ease of convenience. Pay the distressed star system authorities and/or any factions on said distressed station with said fees. Negate any possibility for FC Cmnders to petition any case based on charitable deductions.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

Here's an even simpler and more radical idea.

Charge FC Cmnders 4M credits per server hour. Automatically deducted from said Cmnder's bank balance for ease of convenience. Pay the distressed star system authorities and/or any factions on said distressed station with said fees. Negate any possibility for FC Cmnders to petition any case based on charitable deductions.

That isn't simpler in the slightest. And no. It's a bad idea.

 

[Kissamies]

All carriers in the crowded systems should pay daily extra maintenace fee. The lore justification would be that too many carriers in the system is too much for local security force to patrol without hiring mercenaries or throwing other kind of money at this problem. According to the interstellar law they are allowed to bill carriers for this. It wouldn't even need to be very big fee to encourage players to park their carriers in nearby empty systems instead.