The Carrier Update

[Alley]

Must have missed that then :/

rawr
RAWR

seriously am I not clear enough :(

---

Alley was right.

[Teerin]

I addition to a cool-down time, and perhaps instead of having a fuel requirement, make it have a fee like /pimpship does. That should discourage excessive use, but allow this functionality to be employed for dire circumstances.

What has to be kept in mind is realism, and player interaction. Realistically, your example ship [LN]-LNS-Pine.Ridge would probably almost always have its four fighters docked when not in combat. So if you ignore the fact that example snub [LN]-Bob.Marley logged in docked at Norfolk Shipyard in New York, it could be legitimately assumed that he instead logged in docked on the carrier over in New Hampshire. So that part is good

While it saves time and hassle for the pilot of that fighter, and such a distance isn't so bad, imagine if instead [LN]-Bob.Marley was docked on Southampton Shipyard in New London. Yesterday, he assisted the BAF| in a counter-raid. But skipping all the way from New London to New Hampshire? Had he flown, he might have had an inRP (or PvP) encounter with another player along the way. That's gone now. Sure, he still gets to go raid Rheinland with the carrier and their friends, but this factor must be considered.

I don't know if a range limit could be implemented or how. If basing /requestdock on what system the fighter/bomber or carrier is in proves to be to complex, how about requiring this; "the carrier, strikecraft, and the base the strikecraft is docked on must all be of the same ID."?

---

---

"You see what your knowledge tells you you're seeing. ... how, what you think the universe is, and how you react to that in everything you do, depends on what you know. And when that knowledge changes, for you, the universe changes. And that is as true for the whole of society as that is for the individual. We all are what we know, today. What we knew yesterday, was different; and so were we."
- James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed (1985)

[Unlucky_Soul]

What if fuel is used as cost for "pulling" snubcrafts? Then you'd have a limited amounts of "teleportations" by reasoning that fuel is needed for running ships. Thus you couldn't just F1 Carrier in hostile space or you would need a fuel supply ship, which would force more co-op and prevent easy abuse.

Good idea.

To explain exactly how it's going to work: A command will be created similar to /conn and will be named /requestdock. You'll use it like /requestdock [LN]-LNS-Pine.Ridge and it's going to send a dock request to that ship like it would usually do when you ask for docking. The carrier will have to /allowdock [LN]-Bob.Marley and will be tp'd to the carrier docking bay if there's a free slot.

If we implement the fuel idea, we'll make it consume x fuel per TP and if we add a cooldown, have a cooldown of x minutes before another snub is TPed to the carrier.

Getting teleported into a carrier in magellan from texas seems quite immersion breaking for me TBH

Anyways which ship needs to have the fuel? the carrier or the snub? I think the snub needs to have the fuel, since it is teleporting into the Carrier.

EDIT1: Having a cooldown period is quite irritating especially when you want as much snubs as possible. Could the cooldown be low like say 5-10 secs?

---

[Alley]

Blodo suggested as well we take into account the base to have the same iff as the carrier and the snub. It's possible but we already have to solve a bunch of issues related to duplicate iffs (like ln, ln guard) so we want to base it on IDs. We'll look into it though!

---

Alley was right.

[An'shur]

When forgetting the word "teleportation" and thinking about it in this way: "Snub pilot was on the carrier all the time" it looks quite ok. But I would still prefer to carry some snubs with me really. The idea doesn't look bad, but still, carriers would be primary targets, not like currently caps are and then everything else. I believe carriers will get ganked. This is the negative side of it.
RM Elbe carrier can have 4 modules I thing. Would it be possible to make only 4 snubs teleportable on that ship? To reduce abuse possibilities like flying hidden and spamming bombers and fighters around. 4 snubs in the time after the carrier logged on I think

---

User was banned for: Requested
Time left: (Permanent)

[GhoulPP]

Everyone takes on a role ... and in real life the carriers are the first ships to be attacked .. because they are important and can change the battle ... and so that also gives the smaller ships an objective ... which is defending it ..
think of it as '' destroy the enemy's carrier before they destroy yours '' or Capture the leader from Gears 3 or something ... >_>
which i actually like to be honest .. keep it up Alley !

---

[Alley]

RM Elbe carrier can have 4 modules I thing. Would it be possible to make only 4 snubs teleportable on that ship? To reduce abuse possibilities like flying hidden and spamming bombers and fighters around. 4 snubs in the time after the carrier logged on I think

The thing here as I said before, everything can be abused, it's down to the users to abuse a new tool or not.

We're offering people the possibility to not have to fly 500k to join a fight, will they rather keep that benefit or will they decide to abuse the hell out of it and cause us to deactivate that feature?

Abuse is bad and just ruins the game, we really want to trust the community when we provide this kind of tool.

Getting teleported into a carrier in magellan from texas seems quite immersion breaking for me TBH

Anyways which ship needs to have the fuel? the carrier or the snub? I think the snub needs to have the fuel, since it is teleporting into the Carrier.

EDIT1: Having a cooldown period is quite irritating especially when you want as much snubs as possible. Could the cooldown be low like say 5-10 secs?

1: it's down to preferences. TBH I rather roleplay my ship was aboard the carrier and join a fun fight than fly for 20 minutes to find out the fight is already over.

2: probably the carrier.

3: no idea about the values, but we'll be able to tweak them to find a good balance. We still don't know if we want to implement a cooldown. The idea with the fuel usage is not prevent factions from leaving a carrier 100k above the plane and constantly pull fighters/bombers. Seriously please don't do that.

---

Alley was right.

[Lord Caedus]

I addition to a cool-down time, and perhaps instead of having a fuel requirement, make it have a fee like /pimpship does. That should discourage excessive use, but allow this functionality to be employed for dire circumstances.

What has to be kept in mind is realism, and player interaction. Realistically, your example ship [LN]-LNS-Pine.Ridge would probably almost always have its four fighters docked when not in combat. So if you ignore the fact that example snub [LN]-Bob.Marley logged in docked at Norfolk Shipyard in New York, it could be legitimately assumed that he instead logged in docked on the carrier over in New Hampshire. So that part is good

While it saves time and hassle for the pilot of that fighter, and such a distance isn't so bad, imagine if instead [LN]-Bob.Marley was docked on Southampton Shipyard in New London. Yesterday, he assisted the BAF| in a counter-raid. But skipping all the way from New London to New Hampshire? Had he flown, he might have had an inRP (or PvP) encounter with another player along the way. That's gone now. Sure, he still gets to go raid Rheinland with the carrier and their friends, but this factor must be considered.

I don't know if a range limit could be implemented or how. If basing /requestdock on what system the fighter/bomber or carrier is in proves to be to complex, how about requiring this; "the carrier, strikecraft, and the base the strikecraft is docked on must all be of the same ID."?

What if fuel is used as cost for "pulling" snubcrafts? Then you'd have a limited amounts of "teleportations" by reasoning that fuel is needed for running ships. Thus you couldn't just F1 Carrier in hostile space or you would need a fuel supply ship, which would force more co-op and prevent easy abuse.

Good idea.

To explain exactly how it's going to work: A command will be created similar to /conn and will be named /requestdock. You'll use it like /requestdock [LN]-LNS-Pine.Ridge and it's going to send a dock request to that ship like it would usually do when you ask for docking. The carrier will have to /allowdock [LN]-Bob.Marley and will be tp'd to the carrier docking bay if there's a free slot.

If we implement the fuel idea, we'll make it consume x fuel per TP and if we add a cooldown, have a cooldown of x minutes before another snub is TPed to the carrier.

Getting teleported into a carrier in magellan from texas seems quite immersion breaking for me TBH

Anyways which ship needs to have the fuel? the carrier or the snub? I think the snub needs to have the fuel, since it is teleporting into the Carrier.

EDIT1: Having a cooldown period is quite irritating especially when you want as much snubs as possible. Could the cooldown be low like say 5-10 secs?

I have to agree with Rohj on his point about being able to move across Sirius on a whim, it would break gameplay to a certain extent. But at the same time on Unlucky Soul's point of it being immersion breaking, we have to ask if it is any more immersion breaking then logging off of one ship, then logging onto another ship on the other side of a house with the same character.

[An'shur]

Hm.. seriously, please forget thinking about it like about inter-systems teleportation, it looks indeed silly. This is Freelancer, not Stargate. I think it shouldn't require fuel (Snub is on the carrier all the time)
As simliest as I can say: Carrier have it's snubs in the bay all the time, teleports doesn't exists.

---

User was banned for: Requested
Time left: (Permanent)

[Freeport7]

Would be cool if carriers could spawn NPC allies instead of the teleporting player