Squadmates and carrier control

[Ghostofthecat]

As somebody who is in a small squad, our leader lives in a totally different timezone then a lot of the squad. so if we want to make a bunch of jumps, if one player isn't on either we have to wait another day, or our leader has to stay up until we get on, since his midnight is usually when we get on. Then he has to stay up like 2 and a half hours just to make 10 jumps. I Propose a Function to allow either Trusted Players, that you specifically set to be allowed to set routes for your carrier, sort of like a second in command, or a function to set multiple jumps queued that the carrier will automatically carry out. Personally, i think it would be cool to be able to set a second in command who can control the carrier when you are logged off, but all they can do is move the carrier, not actually use any of the carriers other functions besides pulling tritium out of reserve to fill the tank up.
It also wouldn't make sense to allow carriers to auto carry routes out but not normal ships so this idea would also stick to what the devs have already made.

 

[varonica]

As somebody who is in a small squad, our leader lives in a totally different timezone then a lot of the squad. so if we want to make a bunch of jumps, if one player isn't on either we have to wait another day, or our leader has to stay up until we get on, since his midnight is usually when we get on. Then he has to stay up like 2 and a half hours just to make 10 jumps. I Propose a Function to allow either Trusted Players, that you specifically set to be allowed to set routes for your carrier, sort of like a second in command, or a function to set multiple jumps queued that the carrier will automatically carry out. Personally, i think it would be cool to be able to set a second in command who can control the carrier when you are logged off, but all they can do is move the carrier, not actually use any of the carriers other functions besides pulling tritium out of reserve to fill the tank up.
It also wouldn't make sense to allow carriers to auto carry routes out but not normal ships so this idea would also stick to what the devs have already made.

Would require a lot of changes to the way carriers work at the moment, and that's after removing all the squad stuff due to player demand for a personal FC. It certainly makes sense that a squad should be able to run a carrier, I mean they are a large ship, but it does lead to issues and this wouldn't be the first game I have played where a falling out caused a major problem among clan/guild member regarding guild possessions.

Not against the idea myself, as long as it doesn't cause major issues for single player owned FC's of course, let whoever you want run it, maybe even make it a requirement to be on the control deck to do it.

 

[Ghostofthecat]

Would require a lot of changes to the way carriers work at the moment, and that's after removing all the squad stuff due to player demand for a personal FC. It certainly makes sense that a squad should be able to run a carrier, I mean they are a large ship, but it does lead to issues and this wouldn't be the first game I have played where a falling out caused a major problem among clan/guild member regarding guild possessions.

Not against the idea myself, as long as it doesn't cause major issues for single player owned FC's of course, let whoever you want run it, maybe even make it a requirement to be on the control deck to do it.

It should be set up in a way where they can only move it, or do specific allowed actions, set by the leader, and only when the leader is offline.

 

[Jmanis]

FCs were originally meant to be squadron assets, likely with this sort of capability.

For unknown reasons, this was reduced to making them individual assets instead of squadron ones.

Given this would fly directly against this pretty definitive change of course by FD, I'm doubtful they would flip-flop to making them squadron assets again.

 

[Lugh]

It's almost like fdev shouldn't of thrown a fit and made them only solo owned.

The idea that it had to be one or the other is a lie or sign of major incompetence