The Deep Space Support Array (DSSA) | A FleetComm Initiative
- Thread starter Qohen Leth
- Start date
With the latest changes it seems this might be a really feasible project for explorers to support! 
That's an interesting point. Only if you fill the cargo hold with Tritium though, wouldn't that be costly? And if the carrier is holding other things like ships doesn't that reduce the cargo capacity?
Once the beta gets updated this should be tested and looked at.
It may be possible to fill up the carrier before you go, but is it desirable? How long does it take to fill up a whole carrier? If that takes a long time, you would still like some miners to tag along. Provided they also like exploring to fill the time they don't have to mine.
edit: and because I wanted to check out the changelog, Mengy beat me to it
Anyway, happy days. I'll be following this project from the peanut gallery.
Yes its true, its costly. But we don't know if Tritium prices will remain high. Even if they do, expeditions that gain significant followers could easily fill a Carrier's hold before it launches, and even with high Trit prices the cost would be negligible for owners/participants since its spread across many different contributors.
Don't get me wrong, there are ways around this - ways where we can still promote logistical support, but they will involve expedition organisers setting artificial handicaps - like asking an expedition's Carrier owners not to set Tritium buy orders - so miners can play a role, or like you said filling their hold up with stuff other than Trit, to a point where the only space left for Tritium is the actual fuel depot itself - again giving miners a role to play once the journey is underway.
Its still early, and there's lots of ifs and buts. I just think Frontier may have had other options regarding fuel - options that would have incorporated the need for more gameplay loops and playstyles to become more involved, rather than simply upping fuel 'efficiency'.
Last edited:
I'm actively looking forward to this now, if the changes go live as described then the carrier network will be amazing. We can really get out there and do something cool with this, and I'm very glad that FD have listened to feedback.
The price changes probally make it possible for me to field one for DSSA.
Don’t praise FDev too hard for this. They deserve the begrudging “you’re not a complete a-hole” response, not the “good job” response. 100% removal of upkeep was the goal.
I also note no mention of changes to the absurd prices for outfitting packages.
Don’t praise FDev too hard for this. They deserve the begrudging “you’re not a complete a-hole” response, not the “good job” response. 100% removal of upkeep was the goal.
I also note no mention of changes to the absurd prices for outfitting packages.
Well, I didn't praise FD hard for this, but let me reply to this regardless. Personally, as I said before, I'd prefer a carrier with no passive costs, but also no passive income. If we get UC with tariffs, then we get passive income, so it makes sense that there'd be passive costs as well.
The biggest problem in the first beta was that there'd be huge passive costs with practically zero passive income.
Hm, good point. They've left more important stuff out of patch notes before though (cough CQC matchmaking from the main game cough), so we'll see once the next beta goes live if they really didn't touch those. But if they didn't, there's still until June to
I think this is putting it too strongly. Yes, it will probably be possible to get a Fleet Carrier from Colonia at least to Beagle Point if you do not install too many services and pack the commodity storage full of Tritium. However, nothing and nobody forces you to use this option. Some groups will continue with a mine&jump strategy for their own reasons (waves at the Rock Rats). Some players will be eager to support a DSSA Fleet Carrier deployment as miners, just like they supported DW2. Or expeditions that want a Fleet Carrier along and do the mining for it along the way. And last but not least, Fleet Carrier owners who will do the math for the cost of up to 25.5kt of Tritium at about 42000 CR/t, get a sum exceeding a billion credits, and say "NO WAY I am paying that much".
I am also certain that there will be players who will shake their heads on the whole jump&mine strategy. Or the whole concept of the DSSA. Or the Fleet Carriers in general. So what?
What this change does is to give us more choices. And that is a good thing in my eyes.
It gives more choices to solo players, but less options for multiplayer expeditions that promote and are bound together by teamwork and roles that often lead to emergent gameplay. The latter was the perspective I was coming from and pointed out in bold. Like I said, Frontier can't appease everyone. They created something that was originally intended for group play, and changed tack somewhere along the line to make them solo-friendly assets. That's fine. But maybe there was a balance somewhere in-between that has been missed.
Not unusual for FD to jump from one extreme to the other
Well, nothing set in stone yet, so we'll see in June where it goes to
Well, nothing set in stone yet, so we'll see in June where it goes to
I just want to put on record here that the changes made by FDev at first glance are very much welcomed. However - and this is speaking from a purely expedition organisers perspective - the increase in fuel efficiency is something that has pretty much made the mining, prospecting, and team hauling roles obsolete on major expeditionary events. It is now possible to fill a Carrier up with fuel in the bubble (utilising the free hold space + fuel depot) and fly it almost all the way to Beagle Point without the need for any logistical support along the way.
For non-expeditionary events and solo players, this isn't an issue, and Frontier can't please everyone. So they opted for this change.
Frontier needed to find a middle-ground, but this particular change has gone from one extreme to the other. Increasing Tritium mining yields by 100%, even 200%, instead of simply upping fuel efficiency by 50% would have kept logistical support a factor, and at the same time would have removed many of the frustrations experienced by solo players gathering enough mined Tritium for their own journey around the galaxy.
Again, this is me personally speaking from and expeditionary perspective, where roles and teamwork are crucial at binding such events together, and often add to the overall experience.
With that said, I welcome the other changes Frontier have announced and the DSSA (albeit in a slightly less 'supportive' role) will be much more viable, and despite the reduced importance for mining and prospecting on expeditionary events, Carriers will still have important roles to play, and crucially with UC a possibility, will become major assets on lots of exploration events to come
I think it may actually help with expeditionary roles. Sure it is possible to fill up in the bubble and fly to Beagle Point on a full warehouse load. But that's in a straight line. With an expedition being able to go up and down from the plane and break into new systems previously unreachable could be a goal and would definitely use up a lot more of the fuel. So being able to restock that supply would still be quite important.
Additionally if a fleet carrier wants to use up more space for Outfitting for stocking parts that may help miners or explorers along the expedition they can use more of that too which would reduce the amount of warehouse space and increase the need for miner team assistance.
Deleted member 240115
D
Based on the patch notes today, and planned changes for FC's I can say without a doubt, I'll still be pledging two FC's on behalf of the Intergalactic Astronomical Union.
What's the current way for the FC-owner to transfer fuel from the free hold space to the fuel depot ?
And can it be done through remote management?
And can it be done through remote management?
You can only take it in your hold and then donate it to the depot. So it can't be done remotely...
Ouch...
Agreed...and plenty of time for the pendulum to swing back -- hopefully not to the extent we saw last week.Not unusual for FD to jump from one extreme to the other
Well, nothing set in stone yet, so we'll see in June where it goes to