Should Carriers be Decommissioned?

[Furry Eskimo]

Personally I understand their desire to retain players, but there are alternatives to decommissioning our carriers, right? What would you prefer happen? (Personally I think they should fall into disrepair.)

[HamakiBCN2]

Publicado originalmente por Dolphin Bottlenose:

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Respawn where?

Remember these things will be placed in the game. If you despawn at Boran A2 and I move in, your ship can't respawn there.

So now you need code to handle that.

Respawn in the closest free to respawn star system.

The code is already in the game. The game handles respawns of destroyed ships either at the last station, or at the closest station to you with a shipyard.

Not only that, but that code is already in carriers themselves.

According to the Livestream/Forum post, when you buy a carrier, it spaws for the first time next to the star in the closest suitlable system. So all a re-spawn would need to be is a repetition of that intial process.

[[FuFo] Mortucus]

its 10 mill a week guys and gals
it cost 5 bill for a stock one + upgrades
this aint a new little toy u can buy and put in a dock and forget about

anyone winging about upkeep cant afford one to start with

10 mill is 30 seconds mineing

[Tickle Fingers]

Do a valet system; your carrier disappears, freeing up parking spots after either a time period and the station is at max capacity or something. When you log back in, a valet brings it to the station; that is, it spawns and floats on over nearby for you to take control. Can put in a fee or something if you really want to hurt someone for not playing for some god-awful reason.

As a newer player and older gamer in general, I won't be going near anything that punishes me in the sense the carriers have been set up to do. You don't have to reward me, but arbitrarily deleting my assets is a no-go.

[Stelar Seven]

No one is forced to do anything. The tool is persistent, if you can't or won't swing a persistent cost, wait for the next thing.

Me I'm looking forward to seeing how many complainers can actually refrain from buying one.

[Dolphin Bottlenose]

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Me I'm looking forward to seeing how many complainers can actually refrain from buying one.

I don't have to refrain from buying one. I don't want to buy this "Limits: Unlimited!" brick.

[Agony_Aunt]

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Publicado originalmente por Agony_Aunt:

Umm.... i don't think so.

Its effectively the same mechanic.

The only difference from decomission would be that instead of the ship being sold and you getting a % returned, instead you just don't get anything. Either way it dissapears from the map. That part of the code would be identical.

The difference would be, when you logged back in, your ship would repsawn. Until then, its just a few extra bytes in your save file.

Respawn where?

Remember these things will be placed in the game. If you despawn at Boran A2 and I move in, your ship can't respawn there.

So now you need code to handle that.

It's not bytes in your save file it's an object the servers have to be aware of at all times.

Now maybe they could be respawned at the point of sale, for a "towing fee" and hey that's identical to what they implemented in everything but name.

Respawn at the same location it despawed from. If no available slot there, the next closest available slot. Not exactly hard to code for.

[Stelar Seven]

Publicado originalmente por Agony_Aunt:

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Respawn where?

Remember these things will be placed in the game. If you despawn at Boran A2 and I move in, your ship can't respawn there.

So now you need code to handle that.

It's not bytes in your save file it's an object the servers have to be aware of at all times.

Now maybe they could be respawned at the point of sale, for a "towing fee" and hey that's identical to what they implemented in everything but name.

Respawn at the same location it despawed from. If no available slot there, the next closest available slot. Not exactly hard to code for.

You say that, have you seen the code? Do you code?

Why should frontier have to code up something special for you?

Seems really selfish to me.

[Dolphin Bottlenose]

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

You say that, have you seen the code?

Frontier said that the first time you buy the Fleet Carrier, it's being placed at the nearest available system. So the code is already there. Nothing new has to be programmed.

[Stelar Seven]

Publicado originalmente por Dolphin Bottlenose:

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

You say that, have you seen the code?

Frontier said that the first time you buy the Fleet Carrier, it's being placed at the nearest available system. So the code is already there. Nothing new has to be programmed.

That wasn't my takeaway from the podcast, did you see that in a link?

[Agony_Aunt]

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Do you code?

Not so much these days, but yes, i've coded plenty. So i think i know at least a little what i'm talking about.

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Why should frontier have to code up something special for you?

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Seems really selfish to me.

Never said they should have to do something special for me, you decided that. I said i'd like this feature.

Also, as i understand it, FD are already doing the code for despawning and respawning anyway, they are just making it decomissioning and recommissioning.

The only difference here being, instead of making the player lose the FC it simply gets shelved.

I have to ask, why are you so against this idea? Why are you lashing out at someone who simply wants something different from what is being proposed?

[Stelar Seven]

Interesting terminology, "lashing out." Did I insult you in some way or do you percieve disagreement as an attack?

Near as I can tell, I like what's been offered, and others don't. I have yet to see a compelling case presented for why what's being offered should be implemented some other way.

When I like an idea I'm prone to defend it.

I work with data for a living, and what you are suggesting is much more complicated than you or others are presenting. Trying to add it would likely delay the carriers even more if not outright break them.

The gain? Some people might be less angry about new content with others likely more angry.

That's a bad investment of time and money by Frontier.

[Agony_Aunt]

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

Interesting terminology, "lashing out." Did I insult you in some way or do you percieve disagreement as an attack?

Near as I can tell, I like what's been offered, and others don't. I have yet to see a compelling case presented for why what's being offered should be implemented some other way.

When I like an idea I'm prone to defend it.

I work with data for a living, and what you are suggesting is much more complicated than you or others are presenting. Trying to add it would likely delay the carriers even more if not outright break them.

The gain? Some people might be less angry about new content with others likely more angry.

That's a bad investment of time and money by Frontier.

I chose lashing out as the phrase because that is what you appeared to be doing. You seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea of FD chaging their plans. I apologise if this is not your intent. Its just how you came across to me.

I have no problem with you supporting what FD are doing or objecting to possible changes.

I disagree with your technical assessment as someone who "works with data" and humbly suggest in my opinion that its rather trivial what i'm suggesting, and 99% of the work requires would already be covered by what they are planning with decomissioning anyway. But we can agree to disagree on this.

Therefore your conclusion is rather moot, since neither of us can really determine how much work is required to make this change. It would be up to FD to make that call.

If trivial, they could (or could not) make the change, depending on whether they like it or not. If not trivial, then they most likely won't make the change, because FD rarely change things significantly durning betas.

[Uriel]

Publicado originalmente por Stelar Seven:

My solution is if a player designates their carrier as solo only, and it can't occupy a space or be landed on or used by anyone but the owner, then it should be as used maintenance only.

That takes away what people are complaining about at the cost of losing all the sharing capability.

Say pulling out the market increases jump range and you have an explorer carrier.

That's actually a vey good idea. Fleet carriers have no reason to basically be a mobile trade station with optional extra features anyway. EVERY feature, including trading and whatnot, should be modular.

So, having a configuration that negates some of the passive income and other advantages of a carrier to focus it on long expeditions in the dark would actually be freaking awesome :) Heck, I wouldn't mind mining if it were to gather materials for the repairs themselves either. Don't care about diamonds, but give me that silicium, carbon and iron... Well, planetary mining it is, then.

[[FuFo] Mortucus]

yea they should
you shouldnt have passive income for ever wile not online and upkeep is there for that reason even if u only have to log in to keep ya bank up to date

[Uriel]

Publicado originalmente por Mortucus:

yea they should
you shouldnt have passive income for ever wile not online and upkeep is there for that reason even if u only have to log in to keep ya bank up to date

You're assuming everyone will use their carriers inside the bubble or on major travel routes, and that the profits from that will be higher than the costs.