Elite Dangerous - Fleet Carrier Changes To Upkeep, Fuel, Jumps And More

[@jamesdegriz]

Theres a Monty Python sketch about a guy that can only design slaughterhouses. Always make me think of the FDev design process.

[@TheGhostofOnyx313]

so let me get this straight. they want upkeep because they designed a game that cant handle the amount of people owning fleet carriers in it. so its them trying to be lazy and not fix the issue, instead they are painting over it like it will solve the problem. which it wont.

[@blemat]

- Excuse me ... do you intend to slaughter our tenants? Love that one :D

[@davidsanderson2960]

I know exactly the sketch you mean 'SATIRE'

[@henryatkinson1479]

Lmao

[@Dasky14]

@@TheGhostofOnyx313 Not quite the reasoning, but close. The reasoning is that if there is no upkeep, there could just be abandoned fleet carriers everywhere after a while when people quit. If they are permanent like that, no matter what your server infrastructure is, it will simply get slower and slower over time. Imagine people just dumping abandoned fleet carriers in some random corner of the galaxy, just to tax the servers. People have definitely done stupider things with their time than that. Are there better solutions? Probably. But this is a solution.

[@emelody7849]

Instead of excusing the upkeep cost as a technical issue, they can simply make it so that if the user doesn’t log on for a certain amount of time, the carrier gets automatically stored into the dry dock. Just like storing a ship at a station. If the player wants it back, they simply undock it when they log back on.

[@franticuploader3668]

I agree with this, say 90 days. Much better than upkeep.

[@kevin9218]

Yeah either that or reduce the purchase cost to like 1 bil with no additional services cost and make it a temporary lease for 60 days. No "upkeep" but you have to pay to renew the lease or the ship is repossessed. Total cost 6 bil per year. And if you decide you don't like it after 60 days you're only out 1 bil.

[@Dakarn]

I've suggested an "Impound" feature, where if you don't log in for 2 months, the carrier goes into a "warning" mode for 7 days. If after that 7 days, you still don't log in, everything is emptied from the carrier into the nearest station, and the carrier despawns/decommissions, and you receive a voucher in the ingame email which you have to bring to a carrier system to pay a fine to exchange the voucher to get your carrier back.

[@JoshuaCampbelll]

That would require a game company who isnt after your wallet.

[@sicedice]

Also the system could be set up to defect if the carrier was moved at least once a month, if it's not move its flagged , you get another month to see if it's in use or moved , if not , it's dry docked.

[@BuntyDave]

I can see why they're stick with the idea of people abandoning carriers. I've done so already without buying one 😁

[@Kathrynerius]

I hear ya, there...

[@tibordurgonics]

There would be many ways to solve this issue. The upkeep is pretty much one of the most player unfriendly ones.

[@Suitret]

"Abandon you cannot, what possessed you have not."- But I see what you mean, I do the exact same thing. 😆😆

[@dragoniv]

I'm still skipping out on carriers so long as they can be decommissioned. I take breaks from the game, sometimes six months at a time, and I am not going to risk my five billion CR investment to loss due to inactivity.

[@duke7052]

Same

[@sototalyatree]

I do the exact same, hell I did it with Elite and haven't played it for almost a year until a few days ago when I started grinding for carriers then promptly stopped when I saw the upkeep costs.

[@imushavem7504]

I'm at that point too. As this is still the "beta" phase, I'll wait to see the final "in game" version. Still don't think I'll buy one. I, personally, don't see interesting game play relative to the work to get one and keep it. Maybe for explores to sell data and repair. Maybe as a base of operation for the bug war in a outside the bubble thargoid home system. Maybe to take "A" modules to places like Sag A (gankers galaxy tour?). I'm just not interest in the galaxy wide version of Euro Trucker (with a car carrier) with an upkeep cost. I'll wait for the final in game version and a few months for the "fixes" and then re-evaluate.

[@moonrad]

Couldn't agree more. Like many others, the amounts involved in buying and maintaining FC's will dissuade me from this update. I have enjoyed playing ED for many years, being able to play the game as I wish (should I wish to buy a new ship then I can work towards it, be it CR or reputation). However, I feel that the game is far from what attracted me to it when I first bought it: Freedom.

[@Fluxxoff]

Agreed, I sometimes wont play for over a year, and then come back and give it a good bash. Not worth losing the credits that took so long to acquire. The dry dock idea would work.

[@showdownbrown6355]

I knew they would do this. They put the upkeep purposely high knowing they would reduce them so the player would be happy with the new "low prices" I don't like that they are playing mind games with there community. They must take out upkeep

[@Hedgehobbit]

They played their audience perfectly.

[@biplav32]

Yup its obvious.

[@chris57035]

This is exactly what they did.

[@soul_kishin]

nah they cant plan like that. they are just terrible and out of touch with their own game.

[@scb-1125]

@@RandomNameLastName811 upkeep would be more reasonable if the timer only tick when youre online not when youre offline. But punish player for not playing is a good idea I guess

[@TurkishKS]

This is a brilliant move by Frontier. Make the prices so exorbitant, that when the real prices are revealed, there is a sigh of relief, and a general feeling of them being quite reasonable. They knew that, had they started with these final prices, there would have been significant complaint. Now, after a few weeks of backlash, these prices are lauded as perfectly reasonable, if not generous. Kudos on the psychological games.

[@Lugiamaster075]

I honestly thought this mid video

[@beforcial]

It's manipulative ... not the same thing.

[@machinech183]

If that's true, sure shame on them for being manipulative. Given their lack of insightful design choices in the past, I speculate that may not be the case at all. Just as likely they actually thought this lead fart of an idea would actually go over. It seemed to me to be a ham-fisted attempt to punish a certain player group. Still manipulative, just in a different way. When they've succeeded so often in the past with getting us to shut up and roll over it was likely hard to guess where too far actually is.

[@sototalyatree]

@Orias So they can get their own way, Fdev seems to love one thing and one thing only and that is player time spent in game, put it this way if there was no upkeep at all and they found a nice way to despawn my carrier whenever i was offline completely getting rid of the need to decommission it, I would instantly play the fuck out of this game for a month or more while I sit in quarantine grinding billions of credits to get my carrier I would buy my carrier throw on all the bells and whistles maybe even buy some cool looking cosmetics, show it off to all my friends and laugh at them for not having one then I would get burned out of Elite and play another game for a few months then play Cyberpunk when it comes out and then jump back into Elite maybe 3 months down the line with my carrier and have a blast for a few more months, that is the dream that I have. now let me tell you what they want, I grind billions for a few months grab my carrier show it off stop paying elite for a few months come back with no money and in debt instantly start grinding and grinding and grinding then get burnt out again for let's say 2 months but oh no what about the decommission so I start grinding then I think fuck this i'm not having fun anymore and stop playing for like half a year then I come back and my carrier is no more and I have the big sad. But wait there's more they add new shit for the carriers so I do the huge grind for 5 billion all over again. More time spent grinding my bones to dust = a happy Fdev because now their numbers are higher and they can show big numbers to their shareholders, rant over sorry for venting on you.

[@pj23nl]

this is NMS marketing. swindling of the highest quality

[@troybrice4531]

I would still like to see somthing like aTritium scoop to allow a carrier to "trickle charge" as it orbits an icy ring or cool star.

[@DragoCubX]

It would be an awesome way to make unscoopable stars (mostly the brown dwarves) have some use. I mean, they pay nothing in UC and you can't scoop normal fuel from them currently.

[@giovannibini6809]

@@DragoCubX As a matter of fact brown dwarves are actually rich in tritium

[@Savman1417]

Thats a great idea

[@smartroadbiker]

@@Savman1417 Damn, that means FDev won't do it... lol

[@monkadelic13]

makes sense since Tritium is actually an isotope and not material. How else you think that shit glows in the dark on our scopes? :D

[@aWh1TeDuD3]

I mean I get the fact that FDEV want to keep Carrier numbers low (just in case of game abandonment) due to the strain on servers. But a logical solution imo would be getting rid of the upkeep cost altogether and make it a time-based factor. Meaning if you haven't interacted at all with your FC within a month (or something), the FC despawns and requires a visit to a station to get it re-enabled

[@mikkdc]

I just commented something similar. In Boundless, players have beacons which allow them to claim plots of land which need to be fuelled every 4 weeks. Failure to do so means everything the player has built/collected/stored within their plot(s) of land is deleted.

[@Raptor-C42]

I dunno, that sounds awfully close to a smart idea to me, can't be having that...

[@GrondoGames]

My thoughts exactly. Seems so weird of an explanation. Probably just their way of saying they want us to stay engaged in another annoyingly in your face way.

[@mr.jackstone9256]

i guess the point just flat out is that they DONT want too many people having carriers, only people who absolutely are willing to do it.

[@nv3721]

Exactly. But if they make carriers too good, everyone will get one and then they might have to spend real money to update their servers! Oh no. They might have to work on instancing too!

[@MizaT11]

They could easily mitigate the issue of too many abandoned carriers by merely despawning them after a certain amount of time, unless somehow being tied to an account also takes a toll.

[@benjackson8731]

This was my idea as well. have something where if player has been offline for X weeks, put carrier into storage/drydock. could actually have an interesting POI of facsimiles storage areas of 6-8 of these ships dotted about. I wouldn't have thought there would be an issue with having effectively another ship in your fleet in terms of data usage. How much more data is stored for a fleet carrier than a fully outfitted conda?

[@hamburglurgl]

@@benjackson8731 I think it has to do with the limit of carriers and orbiting body can have. Fdev wants active players to not be hampered with old defunct carriers parked where they want to jump. There are still better ways than taking the players' assets permanently.

[@edmac1090]

Agreeable Thumbs agreed. Just warp the carrier back to a “dry dock” area to be retrieved upon the next logon.

[@coenogo]

Degenerate Pervert Or, if they want, have you pay a set fee to have it relaunched.

[@benjackson8731]

@@michaeloswalt2917 I was meaning when it was stored it shouldn't use as much data as a normal ship

[@trickydicky2594]

The jump cooldown reduction is great, but automatic decommissioning and upkeep should be removed entirely.

[@nocturne_adagio]

They could have some sort of "impounding" system where if you dont visit it at least every few months it gets removed from the game and you pay a fee of 100m to restore it back to normal. Simple concept that would make a lot of people happy. Personally, the 20 mil/week upkeep doest really bother me. Im happy to do a grind session once per year to get the credits for the next year.

[@Incognito-vc9wj]

What’s fun about a jump cooldown?

[@michelkohlenberger437]

@@Incognito-vc9wj especially when this shit is called "carrier". Im way faster with my anaconda. So what is it's purpose? There are no "Fleets" and it can't "carry" you effectively at all...

[@EustyCraft]

Frontier released FC with incredibly high costs, for us to better accept and welcome happily the punishment mechanic. No more decommissioning with low refund rates !

[@Gongolongo]

If you grind for 4 hours, you can save up for a whole years upkeep. Honestly a joke anyways.

[@gravitationaldilation2864]

@@Gongolongo not sure what the totally decked out one will cost for 1 year upkeep. It doesn't matter though.. implementing these types mechanics is deplorable. Poor show.. poor show indeed. I'm keeping this off my hard drive until space legs.. unless they mess that up also.

[@EricTheRedWiseman]

This actually sounds word for word in the psychology phenomenon: Door-In-The-Face method versus Foot-In-The-Door method. DITF - the desired outcome is the second request FITD - the desired outcome is the first requests What this means is this: "If i was a friend that wanted something from you, I'd ask you if i could have $20. To which you would say hell no. But if i asked you for $10 for gas money, you'd accept that request because it's not $20 and it is cheaper. But regardless, you still end up giving me the money i asked you for even if you don't want me to." which is Frontier's method of the level of acceptance of Fleet Carriers. However, the other option is different but works very much the same: "Can you spot $5 every week" which is the method microtransactions work.

[@sorcyclone]

The prices that they're listing for upkeep are the prices that they intended to put out in the first place. They only put the outrageous prices because they want to trick people into believing that there's a 90% discount. It's the same tricks that are used in grocery stores.

[@Myterriers]

You are so right there. Set it ridiculously high then drop it down.

[@cg6217]

Same thing Rockstar Games does with their online games. Im hoping this doesnt start following their path.

[@Incognito-vc9wj]

Interesting, because that trick has convinced me to uninstall the game.

[@SolaceOpossum]

I still disagree with upkeep and honestly it seems like a really half-assed solution to the problem. Why not just make it so that if a carrier is inactive for a period of time (say a week or two, just for arguments sake), it simply despawns and requires you to "summon" it again the next time you play, where it will then FSD into the system where it was before it despawned. It honestly just seems like FD are being stubborn and refusing to even consider other alternatives.

[@criran]

Because it's not something that only you can use. Feasibly, if you park your carrier somewhere and some rando docks there, what happens if the "despawn timer" kicks in while they log off? Carriers are present in Open and Solo, so it's not just a multiplayer issue. We have no idea what happens if you log in and your dock position no longer exists because stations are never destroyed. Besides, a 10-week grace period is WAY MORE than sufficient to either pay your bill or turn off docking privileges.

[@xyzzy3000]

@@criran Give people a visible warning during docking and via the comms panel, then kick them off into space when they next log in. The decommissioning status of a carrier should be visible to other players so thay can make a decision to dock or not. Arguably, a popular carrier shouldn't be decomissoned anyway, as it is clearly serving a purpose other than clutter for the player base. Why should we all be punished just because one commander took a break?

[@SirKaldar]

Have a despawn timer based on player interaction with the carrier. That way if players are using it, it will stay. But if it goes unused it will disappear and not clutter up the game until the owner brings it back again.

[@Wylie288]

end game players need a proper credit sink. Thats the entire purpose of fleet carriers

[@machinech183]

Whoever is in charge of decisions like this is hell-bent on having this be a money-draining punishment in the guise of a "shiny thing". They're banking on it being enough of a status symbol that it will tempt their target players regardless. I don't give a crap what game you're playing when the gm/dev/dungeon master/whatever starts looking to punish their players to get their way it's time to move on. Hell, the current implementation of this isn't even a 10th of what's actually wrong with it. It's the mindset behind driving the why of everything they've done with it that's of issue. Incredibly unlikely that'll get fixed, ever.

[@Gazbeard]

I completely disagree with the whole upkeep system - even with the new reduced costs, they're still high enough to force you to login weekly to grind out the upkeep cost. As soon as devs introduce a mechanic to force you to login, it's no longer a game and no longer fun. Frontier are trying to turn E:D into a virtual job for their customers.

[@firefox0903]

I know right I think the huge price of obtaining and outfitting the thing is going to be enough of a deterrent for most

[@jaredfieseler6654]

Gazbeard exactly! Why should I be forced to play a game when sometimes I don’t want to. Like people play more than one game frontier!

[@infragrayscale]

I wonder if they'll implement something like WoW back in the day. Where they changed the name of the login xp from being tired and earning less xp to being rested and earning more xp. Same system different name. Not quite sure how they'd do it here, but I'm sure they're working on it

[@Incognito-vc9wj]

Plus who the hell wants their credits disappearing by the millions every week? Fdev, how does that translate into fun?

[@Spartan086]

100m a week and you’re set for 10 weeks..I’ve made 1b in a day which would set me for 100 weeks

[@SuwinTzi]

They always. Do . This. "Here's a new thing with ridiculous, unfun things!" *Community outcry* "Here's our original plan for them that we now walk back to and now you'll praise us!" Community: "ALL HAIL FDEV!"

[@bluequiltedness]

At least they finally got us out of slot-machine engineering. But the "3 materials per pick up, instead of just one, see aren't we nice?" was probably their plan all along, like you say

[@peadardonnelly5043]

Stop being a winge

[@wilfridsephiroth9213]

Exactly this. And they've done it to hide the fact that, in fact, FCs add nothing at all to the game in terms of gameplay opportunities.

[@pieguy6992]

It's a marketing tactic. It makes it seem like they're listening to the community, which makes FDev look really good. Honestly, it's not a bad thing.

[@brittondurbin6165]

Not bad. But I think upkeep as a mechanic, along with decommissioning are bad and need to go. What about unused FC? If the owner is inactive for 10 weeks, the FC goes to “sleep” meaning it’s no longer able to be seen by players. Upkeep being modest just means you can leave an abandoned carrier in space longer. There would be a one time modest reactivating fee. Also, outfitting and shipyards need bulk purchasing discounts, to allow for competition with stations and still making a profit.

[@coenogo]

Britton Durbin Basically, if a carrier is not active for an extended amount of time, it returns to “port”, where it will be docked, and requires a fee to get it launched again?

[@demiserofd]

I think it's necessary, or the universe will become clogged.

[@brittondurbin6165]

Coen V I wouldn’t have it return anywhere. I just goes offline where it is and can be reactivated for a fee.

[@Droogie128]

@@demiserofd I think that is a solution looking for a problem.

[@dside_ru]

I think they're just trying to avoid confirming the idea that upkeep is supposed to keep players coming back.

[@NegCal1292]

7:10 “It seems Frontier might not want players to make too much passive income with these...” During the announcement livestream, they made mention of wanting to generate a player-based economy, so if this is the case, it seems that was a bold-faced lie for those of us who like trading and/or economy management.

[@imushavem7504]

Yeah. That would make it too much like a "sandbox" game where a players build something. FD wants ED to be a sandbox without sand, just a few toys they select.

[@lucakeenan5035]

Yeah i agree There is a pretty good reason as to why EVE is much more popular

[@SophiaAphrodite]

Clever sales pitch by them. " Hey, I talked to my boss and he said we can throw in the under coating at an 80% discount! But you still have to have it redone every month or we repossess your car."

[@adamremolacio]

SEE GUYS WE'RE LISTENING! NOW THE PUNISHING GAME MECHANICS ARE AT WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED AFTER INTRODUCING THEM AT SHOCKINGLY HIGH RATES SO THAT WE'D LOOK LIKE THE GOOD GUY AFTER "LISTENING" TO COMMUNITY FEEDBACK WE ALREADY KNEW WE'D BE GETTING. What a joke.

[@Hedgehobbit]

I've seen this done over and over again yet it works every time.

[@sorcyclone]

At least someone understands how it really is.

[@scottynr4139]

Yep... My thoughts exactly.... Love how Fdev think we are all to dumb to not see they are just trying to dupe us...

[@norokelt]

imo you are a joke. with all those QQ moaners around the globe that cannot make a lame 200 milions in week... which can be achieved btw. within 3 hours of lame gameplay. Crying babies as you and your QQ brothers and sisters make game WORSE AND WORSE since early 2000's. if you cant make profit in game, dont want to buy the most OP vessel in game available for players, which are the Fleet Carriers. The FC are meant for ppl that deserve it.

[@insertnamehere8099]

I mean hey, it works

[@e2rqey]

Saw this coming a mile away. They need to remove upkeep completely. I don't believe their excuse. There are plenty of other ways they could avoid the issue they are stating.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

yes but that way they don't need to actually put any effort in it. i mean, imagine if they had to bring a SINGLE core engine developer back in. That would mean delaying the 5 other games elite money is financing by... 2 weeks, absolutely unacceptable! better offload all the artists that aren't needed for all the other games to elite, so they can be productive and not waste company money, while elite players get their eye candy every now and then so they don't get too grumpy or go look for other games to spend their money on.

[@_VI701]

For example: FC stations. After 10 weeks the carrier switches to autopilot and goes to a station, where it is disassembled and stored untill the owner decides to bring it back

[@SolaceOpossum]

Another alternative: Have it so that carriers automatically despawn when ever you log out. However if you want to have one as a base of operations for a squadron or something you can pay a weekly fee to have it permanently stationed somewhere in the galaxy. If it accrues too much debt, then it will despawn and you will need to pay off the debt before it can be permanently stationed again. The best of both worlds.

[@chriscross2069]

5head

[@julbot1]

If they're concerned about abandoned carriers clogging up the place. Then just have them despawn after a set period of inactivity. If they're concerned about other people's ships being stored on the fleet carrier when it despawns, then just have any stored ships not owned by the Fleet Carrier's owner moved to the nearest station with a shipyard.

[@fFletchs]

Upkeeps should be removed completely

[@Wylie288]

The mission board should be removed immediately.

[@mbrsart]

These changes are so drastic that I can't help but think, "Why the frack did they implement the original numbers in the first place? Did they seriously think we would be okay with that?"

[@Kaldurahm1]

To get you to accept upkeep and these other things as an acceptable alternative. If they'd asked about these specific features before, would most people have been for it? "Yes, force me to login and grind weekly just to keep it"? "Yes, make it so NPCs don't buy from me"? No one would have agreed. So they went bigger than they needed to, gauged our reactions, and threw us an "olive branch", a "we're listening" compromise.

[@BricklessFreak]

It's the classic abusive boyfriend maneuver. Show them something much worse so that the beating they get looks like an act of kindness.

[@Pilot8091]

It’s obviously a foot in the door policy.

[@Midnight24435]

If you would like to know more on this technique, look up "Door-in-the-face technique". An example of this technique in action. Person 1 originally has $30 in mind they'd like to get from Person 2, so instead of just asking for it directly, first propose a much higher number to talk Person 2 down and guilt them into helping. Person 1: "Hey bud, I'm going through a rough patch, do you have $50 I can borrow?" Person 2: "Sorry man, that seems a little steep... I'm not sure I have that much to loan." Person 1: "Well, now that I think about it, I'll only really need about $30 to get by. Is that feasible?" Person 2: "Uh...sure, should be."

[@SledgeFox]

Upkeep + decommissioning = BAD IDEA. No thank you. No need for me to log in... Oh... And I lost the little faith I still had in Frontier... Beta player leaves the ship. Thank you very much Obsidian for your Videos! 👍

[@DukeStarscream]

Aslong as there is upkeep I will ignore FC comletely. I wont buy anything on other people carriers.

[@AlmightyMatthew]

well, you are not welcomed to my FC then, sir.

[@revanu2140]

Don't be weak minded

[@MrPelzi91]

not players fault, why the heck you would not use other players carriers :D

[@twerkingtwinkies2335]

If they don't enable npcs to interact with FCs, then it's borderline useless. The market should be a module and replace it with a shipyard.

[@danny1229c]

@@MrPelzi91 because you have to make the hard stand so nobody likes or uses them or it wont get changed ! if a few people can play them and bare them then nothing will get changed

[@tokyozardoz]

I want to be able to sit in the bridge of my fleet carrier.

[@angryjoshi165]

True... I too

[@twerkingtwinkies2335]

No shit... lazy development

[@revanu2140]

Well when space legs is a thing then perhaps you may

[@magscorch7706]

@@revanu2140 So never?

[@dataletra]

@@magscorch7706 never.. sadly

[@cmdrodimir7742]

This is definitely a good thing, but it is also very clearly a use of the ol' "door-in-the-face" sales technique. It is clear now that they intentionally made the numbers too high to get the community to accept the idea of upkeep. This is great, but remember that it could still be better.

[@BlindGuardianCz]

Its stupid as hell. - We must have upkeep otherwise galaxy will be full of carriers - -- Weird though, taking into account they put TIMERS and COOLDOWNS on everything, yet they cannot put timer if player won't log for a week to freaking de-spawn it! Just load of bollocks.

[@fistsofsnake5475]

@@BlindGuardianCz They would need at thing you have to do mission or some activity to avoid players loging only to keep they cariers. And they people would cry that frontier make them do stuff.

[@poppashean4616]

I already have one job. I dont need a second one that doesnt pay anything. The upkeep reduction is good. But it shouldn't be there at all. The abandonment idea is crap. Just despawn the ship and send a notification to the owner. Grind is not quality gameplay.

[@benjaminchaves6047]

I totally agree with the despawn. After a week of inactivity the carrier should "warp out" and should "warp back in apon player logging in

[@NgryMosquito]

making dumb mechanic 80% less annoying doesnt make it right .... It's way easier to fix bad decisions when you know the reasoning behind them ....

[@giantnerd14]

Calling something dumb without offering an alternate solution also doesn't seem right. Upkeep sucks, but I can't think of another solution off the top of my head to the derelict problem.

[@Vanhala]

@@giantnerd14 Tie it to logins. You don't login for say 2 months your carrier goes back to the nearest shipyard. Done.

[@grihoriko8800]

@@giantnerd14 There is literally tons of solutions just in the comments of this video and most popular are despawn it after certain amount of time or sending it to some kind of dock. Are you blind or what?

[@giantnerd14]

@@grihoriko8800 Yeah, and I've yet to see one I thought would work. I've posted under some of those as to why. But this guy didn't even bother.

[@sirspy5672]

@@giantnerd14 Why wouldn't those solutions work? I've read through a bunch of them and they all seem great and much better than upkeep. I really don't see why they don't just make them like stations to where if nobody is interacting with them and there is no instance loaded for them, then just have them be despawned and not taxing on FDevs servers. The entire problem with upkeep is not to help with technical issues, no, their purpose is to keep players coming back and logging on constantly to maintain their carrier. FDev chose to make them persistent and taxing on their servers, they could easily change that but they choose not to.

[@Poe_Dunker]

We need to be able to respawn on the fleet carrier after death

[@rixxan]

If you have a shipyard, you can.

[@Incognito-vc9wj]

David Sangrey wow now that’s fun. FDEV sure knows how to make things fun.

[@callanwilson3623]

yeah just delete stations bro who needs stations when carriers are basically free and can do everything

[@thomgadget]

Once we've accepted any form of upkeep that accrues outside of the game, we're in trouble. They'll be adding it to all new ships or SRVs or whatever going forward.

[@siifer0186]

I would like to see upkeep go away and you keep the 10 weeks timer if the player don't log just remove the carrier form the galaxy map "stasis" till the player comes back. NO LOSING THE SHIP :)

[@scottjgray83]

That sounds more like it.

[@beforcial]

You are too rational...

[@musifter9126]

I don't like that... it's more of a leash than upkeep. One of the uses for these things is as deep space stations... those are there for the community, not the player that owns the carrier (who might not visit it again after it's placed). So it shouldn't be tied to the activity of one person... the activity of others should count too.

[@Mctappits]

Wish the carriers would just go into “storage” and not be decommissioned so a small fee to get it back out, so it’s not lost permanently.

[@JimPlaysGames]

Yeah you should also be able to put them into dock voluntarily at any time to pause upkeep. Like if you need to take a break from the game for a month or something.

[@criran]

A small fee? Like 14 million credits? Just pay the upkeep. Also, you get some of the value back (minus delinquent upkeep) just like when you sell a ship. So you can just buy a new one.

[@ShadowAviator]

@@criran I don't think the issue is with the upkeep exactly. Operating costs are fine, our ships currently have that. The issue is more with not LOSING the FC permanently. I know I play in bursts. I may not play a game for months, but then start playing every evening for a while.

[@rucarnuts13]

There’s still minimal incentive, as it’s still more of a burden than an asset to players. The upkeep should be due monthly, instead of weekly, and it should be cheaper - at the very least. That will make it more worthwhile for people who can’t log on weekly to pay ludicrous amounts of money to keep them running.

[@wildone106]

Because they think forcing you to play is now considered fun gameplay. PASSSSSSSSS

[@edmac1090]

No upkeep, period. It’s stupid.

[@EugeneGolden]

As it stands right now, you can fund a fully kitted carrier for a week with 1 robigo run in a python. Takes 15 minutes. Do it for an hour and you have the carrier for a month. If you were getting deployed in the military you would have to grind for multiple days of ingame time, though you could then cut that time in half by suspending services. You should never have to grind for the sake of taking a break, that's shit gameplay. But at least it's feasible to do so

[@rucarnuts13]

demalition90 - It’s feasible in the bubble, arguably where carriers make the least amount of sense. For explorers who are out in the distant reaches of the black; ludicrous amounts of exploration credits are required to achieve the upkeep costs, which keeps you tethered fairly close to the carrier, which kinda defeats it’s purpose. It’s feasible now, but it’s still more of a burden than a gameplay asset.

[@Vanhala]

No upkeep - it's manipulative at ANY price.

[@Verbose_Mode]

My first thought for how to use carriers was to equip one with repair/refuel, rearm for limpets and put a buy-order for low-temp diamonds at 80% market, then park it right next to a mining hotspot and announce “buying diamonds!” so players don’t have to fly back. Let it fill up, then zoom back to a station and offload at market price for a good chunk of cash. Convenient for miners, and I skim of some of the profit. But I still don’t think it would be that viable. No way to effectively announce my presence, upkeep is still probably to high, and selling to the galactic market is a manual-labor chore.

[@NgryMosquito]

Just from top of my head: - on/off button with cooldown that would make fleet carriers dissapear like your ship already does when you dont play for week - instancing them private/open base on option players have - "virtual garage" where you could park your carrier when you know you wil not play for a while and it will dissapear (this solution if sor immersion/lore lovers - .... It's way easier to fix bad decisions when you know the reasoning behind them ....

[@Samuraid77]

There isn't even an in game explanation for the upkeep. The things that increase upkeep cost don't actually make sense to cost upkeep. Why does it cost upkeep to have the modules in the ship? Do AI ships buy sell and trade commodities out of our carriers? Not nearly enough humans are going to use any one carrier except maybe in a very small handful of systems to make it beneficial to stock the ship full of market products to sell to players to make it any where near profitable. Is it at all possible for a ship to produce more money than it costs? If not this is just a time sink intentionally designed by frontier to be that way and keep people on the endless grind so they stick around long enough to buy more ARX I always thought the point of these was going to be leaned towards independence, not heavy dependence on even more grinding just to keep the mildly useless ship around.

[@okfoxtrot]

There must be a more creative way than up-keep to achieve what they need to.

[@julianturner69420]

Now they need to add a feature where players can directly donate to fleet carriers, so that player factions and squadrons can work together to operate one.

[@the_OG1893]

How do the carriers make money? Do they have a bank on board? Or is it soley on the owner to pay?

[@blbprime11]

This improves it ALOT to the point where I might get a carrier. The big thing is having the universal cartograph service. That allows us to get revenue now out in deep deep space. And it removes the risks us explorers face. No more accidently losing 9 months of data because you came in a tad too hot on a 5G world. And the reduced upkeep costs are just the cheery on top. I definitely am thinking of getting one and going out to one of the arms edges and exploring like crazy. The only bad thing is obviously still having an upkeep cost. But if the cost is a few mil a week. Which is achievable in a day or two of exploring then this might be ok.

[@MrEdHinton]

I reinstalled the game...

[@olivierrodriguesneto5995]

Upkeep over any case will be acceptable, it still is very manipulative, and can easily bring addiction to the game for the people more suceptible to this. Even if is very low, it still is very manipulative

[@sijonda]

Coming from someone who bought the game before Horizons was a thing. I take very long breaks where I have more important things to worry about. I agree as long as there is upkeep I'll never buy a carrier. Especially when it's not a carrier until you pay more to make it one.

[@sydd9333]

It truly does anger me. I'm a bounty hunter. I have spent majority of my hours recently working on engineering and outfitting my ships. Carrier would be useful in transporting my fleet around since many of those ships don't have huge jump ranges. So not only do I have to mine to earn the credits to get a carrier, I also am forced to mine rather than doing something that I enjoy. The devs can suck it. I'm uninstalling this game, I've truly had enough.

[@thelowedown2132]

The mandatory de-commissioning will be an issue for a large number of players working in the Military. Deployments can be anywhere from 6-18 months long and I don't really want to come home to an empty bank account and a re-possessed carrier.

[@osiversen]

Just imaging to end up in the hospital, when you finally is released, home again and you want to play ED and your carrier is gone.

[@showdownbrown6355]

So they added these into the game with the intent of not wanting people to buy them hahahah 😂 great update

[@michelkohlenberger437]

This game is out for 6 years ... And all we got is landing on bigass stones and this shit... With this speed ... We'll never see spacelegs or atmospheric landings at all...

[@chris57035]

Upkeep should be removed completely. Your description of it as "punishment" is exactly correct. The ability to store ships and modules should be a default feature of the carrier.

[@RetroMaticGamer]

I’m glad they made the prices more manageable, but I’ve been known to take breaks from E:D for weeks or months at a time, and I’m not alone. Frankly, after spending 5 billion, carriers should simply not get decommissioned, period. I won’t be buying one until FDEV can find some other way to de-spawn them so that I can still keep it around after, say, a 3-6 month hiatus. Or even a 3-YEAR hiatus. That’s why I don’t do power play: losing merits I worked for just seems frustrating to me. I don’t care what it is, or how long I’m away; if I earned it, it should be mine for as long as E:D still has servers running.

[@ladycaruso]

Yay! Glad to hear that cartographics have been added, that makes me happy. I won’t own one, but I’ll be happy to share some of my cartographic money with the owner if i don’t have to go all the way to the bubble!

[@radicalxedward8047]

These prices would be “reasonable” if frontier hadn’t already nerfed every good earning method.

[@HomerZorD]

what do you mean? I make 150m every 2hrs of gameplay. If you are saying that there should be other ways to earn money than just mining all night long I completely agree.

[@axxxxier]

@UCj3OQu8uzPNjUh-2SMUa0Yw it is when youre just planning to buy some regular ships, not a 5billion (+upkeep xd) carrier

[@axxxxier]

@UCj3OQu8uzPNjUh-2SMUa0Yw efficiently boring tho

[@Cyril_Sneer]

@@HomerZorD he already sayed that! Because there was many different funny exploits over the Years to make money (much less money). But all these are nerfed! But that is only knowing by Players how play longer than one Year... 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@norokelt]

allow me to smile... I don't have a clue what you find to be a GOOD EARNING METHOD, because if getting MULTIPLE DOZENS of MILLIONS credits PER HOUR is not easy and good, than ... /facepalm... (yes, this is how much you can earn nowadays with EASE and in different ways, exploration, passenger missions, mining, trading commodities, combat). back in my days past, it was used to say >>> L2P L2P L2P

[@weppe3299]

To be honest, they should just add a Drydock thing where you can "store" your carrier and pause the upkeep cost if you plan on taking a break. That way you wouldnt have to worry about loosing it due to inactivity. Could be like a parking fee for putting it in there to avoid exploiting it when playing and using the carrier on a regular basis

[@thecodewarrior7925]

They could also just make a fleet carrier lite that doesn’t appear on the system map (except to your friends), and doesn’t require upkeep.

[@austinm5630]

I guess my question is this: why do we have upkeep costs AND usage fees? That is, why do we have to pay to upkeep a Universal Cartographics station AND give up a percentage fee every time we use it? Why is it not either/or? And preferably just the usage fee. I have no issue getting 12.5% less for my exploration data if it means I only have to make 4 or 5 jumps back to my carrier instead of 50 back to Colonia or whatever. But now, if I don't survey for 20+ hours, every single week, then the entire operation costs more than it earns. I've never been one to do exploration for profit (I just like finding cool stuff) but I can't justify buying a carrier and paying upkeep if it's going to cost me so much that it won't even break even over time. Here's an idea: why not lock the carrier behind triple elite rank, and then just have a usage fee on each component with no maintenance fees? This way only veterans will even have one, so that alone should eliminate 90% of the clutter issue, and people won't be penalized for having one.

[@The-Man-On-The-Mountain]

That is a well known mental manipulation: you overprice something, people are upset, then you lower the price, people are happy, and even they think you are a hero and they owe you one. Sorry but this is crap. This game is dead to me unless they do something interesting with it.

[@DevilsRe6ct]

Preach

[@sequorroxx]

One of the terms for this technique is called "Anchoring".

[@imperialgaming5751]

Jump range still needs increasing from 500 ly to around 2000 to reward end game player and open up the galaxy more and the ability to switch to a cinematic or 3rd person view before jumping needs adding so people can enjoy it..

[@darranstyler]

Much more useful for me as an explorer now; I might start saving for one :)

[@taemien9219]

The technical and gameplay limitations of too many Carriers in ED are very similar to how housing is in Everquest 2. In fact despite the difference in the types of games between EQ2 and ED, the housing system and carrier system provide the player with very similar functions. In EQ2 your house is an instanced zone that can be visited by other players in order to purchase items or use other facilities. In order to keep the servers from being bogged down by instances that are abandoned they have an upkeep cost in what they call rent. This must be paid weekly. And can be paid up to several weeks in advance in escrow. Sounds pretty similar to Carriers still doesn't it? Where it differs is when you fail to pay upkeep, the home is merely removed from the list of instances other players can visit. When you pay upkeep again, it returns. You don't lose it. You don't need to pay back rent. You pay for a week in advance as normal. Frontier could do something similar. You purchase the carrier as normal. Pay for the modules, and then you pay for a week of upkeep (or more). And if the upkeep isn't paid, there's no debt, no negative thing at all. Just the carrier is removed from play and enters a dormant state. To restore it you would need to go to a place you can normally buy carriers, pay a standard fee (if they wish to do this) to reactivate, pay the upkeep costs for active modules, and the carrier poofs back into existence like any new carrier would and has all the modules you paid for. This would allow players who have to take breaks from the game to keep their carriers. Life happens, and there is a ton of things that can happen that should not be punished ingame. Sickness, illness, injury, Deployments, moving, and various other things that can take a player out of the loop for a while. All the while it keeps the Galaxy from being cluttered by abandoned ships.

[@OTomin-jo4ku]

No, the upkeep costs need to go. That decommissioning bulshit and the 60% price drop after 3 months is already a huge punishment, that's enough. So what's next, a weekly maintenance upkeep costs on my ship modules?

[@Incognito-vc9wj]

What’s next? Commanders will be required to report their monthly income and pay taxes. Or you can jump to far away outposts with tax filing offices and pay millions of credit for the service. It’ll be great! -Fdev

[@Welkor]

My hard stop remains the question "How long can you step away from elite, before you lose the carrier". Right now you MUST "play" once during that time interval, and do something to make up whatever deficit your carrier is at (not necessarily what you'd want to log in to do), or you will lose your carrier and most of what you've spent on it. If you step away for any length of time, you have to set a calendar reminder to come back and play a game. Any way you cut this, all you can do is prolong the timer so long as there is upkeep. Frontier's explanation for why doesn't even hold water, either... The decommissioning make sense technically. Sure, I can buy that they can't make a feature of their game (first new feature to be added for quite a while, that comes back into play in a minute) efficient enough that everyone can actually play it. That doesn't explain the upkeep, since in this scenario it would only serve as a mechanism to clock the decommissioning, for which there are other much better ways to put a timer on inactive fleet carriers. For one thing they'll have to do ongoing balance to upkeep numbers, which would royally screw with anyone's calendar reminder to "play", to make sure there aren't too many active fleet carriers that refuse to lose enough money to decommission. Seems to me that the decommissioning exists because of the upkeep, not the other way around. They needed a punishment for leaving it sit for too long, otherwise you might not set that calendar reminder to come back and "play", rather than to add features to the game frequently enough to maintain a player base.

[@Roblstar]

I still have a massive issue with the upkeep. It is there to make you have to play a basic minimum! There is no other reason for it! There are other mechanic's that they could use to remove unused carriers. They could mothball them etc, after a certain length of player inactivity, etc. No need to remove them! The upkeep mechanic is a clear use of schoolyard phsycology, that belittles Frontier as a company in my eyes... I am sure that they will have looked into various different approaches. It is just sad, & pretty discusting that they chose this way to approach the issue. If you choose to step back from the game! Your account should stay as you left it! If they wish to cut down on unused ones? Then they should just be automatically docked somewhere after a certain time, inactive. But there, ready to be reactivated with maybe some effort (but not to much) so that players past efforts, are not crxpped all over! These should be a reward not a penance! & fun...

[@garys4300]

Awesome show as always. I think the new changes are going to put FC in the hands of a lot more players & reduce the “Grind” to something much more manageable! Well I have to get back into the betas, Thanks for the Great Content! o7 CMDR Big Gair…

[@4oh3overside]

In the back of their minds I'm sure they secretly wanted to charge premium currency credits to bypass this mechanic.

[@Rocksteady72a]

The entire concept of the upkeep system is such a stab in the back to the playerbase. It's a gotcha mechanic to keep players in the game, yet if a player has put in the extreme hours to afford the carrier in the first place, they're more than likely the kind to continue playing the game. And on the flip side, those of us who return to the game in random bursts are actively discouraged from playing at all, as the new "endgame" suddenly becomes an unenjoyable chore to keep.

[@NordicMeatShield]

I want to fly this around like a normal ship instead of having it stuck in one spot

[@giovannibini6809]

EXACTLY! Like when u r in an SRV! You board your ship, a second of black screen and and you transition from the SRV seat to your ship seat. Then in your ship you have the option in the down panel to enter the SRV. THE SAME SHOULD APPLY TO CARRIERS. Dock to carrier as with any other station ---> Get an option to "board carrier" ---> transtion black screen ---> BOOM U R IN UR FLEET COMMAND DECK ---> Get an option to enter any of your docked ships. As for the flying i think the should behave like capital ships.

[@gerardvandendorpel6907]

They should add a vacation / i dont want to play right now mode that starts with a week from activating, putting the FC offline from the server. When deactivating that mode after it going offline(after the initial week) a small, get over here fee to reactivate the FC. Maybe add a touch of, Welcome back commander we are ready for your orders. They can still have the upkeep ( with the lower price) because what is 1 bil a year having a mobile station, and keeping a role play aspect that the crew needs to get payed.

[@monnster07]

So, FDev don't want a bunch of derelict FCs due to player inactivity? Good. But instead of creating a mechanic that just "mothballs" inactive FCs based solely on time, they decide to turn it in to yet another punishment for the dedicated players that has no greater effect on alleviating inactivity than just a time penalty alone. Edit: forgot a word

[@akro7481]

They just need a mothballing option to put the fleet carrier in storage for breaks where it has zero upkeep. I know I'll take months off from playing, so a fleet carrier will never be worth it while upkeep is around.

[@Kissamiess]

Very acceptable. Now I only want an ability to store some of my fleet as a standard feature, but if the shipyard i not too expensive to maintain it's not intolerable as it is. Being able to schedule multiple jumps would be nice too.

[@bandybushido]

Thank you Frontier, you have made me very happy. o7 x

[@themechanist7875]

Gotta say, I'm happy and impressed with these rather big changes. I was planning to get a carrier for exploration use and with these changes they made that possible. Also still don't like the upkeep but atleast they made the prices a lot more reasonable. Especially with the addition of universal cartographics it's a lot more doable for explorers to sustain upkeep costs.

[@atli987]

Just don't forget to fill it with money. If you miss a payment the services will be paused and there is no way to re-enable paused services in the deep unless you travel back to the bubble with the carrier.

[@Savman1417]

Great news on jump spin up and cool down, and also UC, but i feel the remaining huge issue for me is mining fuel and the cost of buying it from a station. The time requird to mine tritium is a serious issue for explorers. I think carriers should auto scoop from a systems star if its a scoopable star. Shipyards MUST be fitted by default, its not a fleet carrier if you cant carry your fleet and rearm, restock and refuel. If a player doesn't use thier carrier for say a month then it should be despawned and stored at the nerest drydock in a discovered system, and retrievable whenever the player wants to use it again. If it is just left out in space there should be a resonable towing fee payable on retrieval, but if the player takes the carrier to a drydock and puts it into storage themselves then obviously no fee.

[@idontneedthis66]

Well at least they finally listened, though with the sheer scale of the uproar the original figures caused I doubt they had a choice. As a developer myself I understand the technical issues they were looking to mitigate with upkeep, but it does still seem punitive. Perhaps there should be an option to simply shutdown the carrier and put in dry dock, taking it off the map and so reducing the number of carriers the servers have to handle. That way players pay the upkeep when using them, but can then shut it down if they decide to not play for a while and their bank account isn't being drained constantly while they're out. As for spool up and cool-down times, the new numbers are FAR more reasonable! The one problem I still have is the amount of storage provided for Tritium (and the fact that carriers need a special fuel at all). The cuts are better, but it still requires mining to effectively stock it up.

[@olivierrodriguesneto5995]

The original numbers were 100% proposital, they made that expensive for people accept the mechanic when they lower it. But still is a very manipulative thing. As you said they could very well just despawn to aliviate the servers, instead they made this shit! Frontier is a very bad company, if they don't make their things better for consumers, they will have one less user, and I hope more people do the same, maybe it's the only way to make they do a good thing...

[@Truckerdeluxe85]

I wish they just ran on scoopable hydrogen like everything else. I'd have no issue building and storing a T9 Tanker just for fueling, but no, they had to make it mining based... like we havent done enough of that already!

[@idontneedthis66]

@@Truckerdeluxe85 Yeh that was my original thought, and I think I had commented that on one of OA's previous videos hoping that Frontier would see it. I mean, why would everything other than capital ships run on the same fuel? Makes no sense. And really you shouldn't even have to keep a tanker on the carrier to hold fuel, the carrier should just have a really large fuel tank for that purpose (or have a variable size you can choose just like with normal ships). Seems pretty simple to me - when jumping with a FC, if you have the map data for the system you're jumping to you can open it and select which body to jump into orbit around, otherwise you jump in within a reasonable distances from the primary star and begin scooping (or if you need to scoop fuel anyway). Honestly I'd even be ok with a slightly longer spinup/cooldown in exchange for being able to scoop fuel as needed.

[@tiz68]

So as an explorer with these new updated upkeep numbers can you make enough exploring to cover the cost of the upkeep? I know mining is the highest paying and while you can mine out in the black you can't sell to get money to cover the upkeep costs. So it seems only universal cartography is the only way to make money while out there. I wish mining would be a way to reduce costs because you are mining the materials needed for upkeep yourself. That would really make exploring more fun in a carrier. Bring your whole fleet with you out in the black. Find a good mining spot and mine for a few hours to relieve the monotony of exploring and actually help cover upkeep costs at the same time.

[@bogie170]

This game died long ago for me. Such a shame. Could of been amazing.

[@BannorPhil]

I'd **LOVE** for you to do a follow-up on this, now that Fleet Carriers have been around a while, and at least SOME of the problems have been sorted out. A LOT has changed since this video was made.

[@fcold9402]

So, if i get a carrier and then don't play for a while, they will remove my carrier since i didn't pay the upkeep for the weeks i didn't play?. No thank you.

[@revanu2140]

Or you practise personal responsibility

[@alexsnow5092]

Please let us see how the carrier jumps either from cockpit or cinematic camera, it’s the most glorious aspect I don’t want to miss it 100% of the time

[@DesertStateInEU]

Whether this was the old "offer crap and then change it something better so people will like it" tactic or not, is irrelevant. 1.1 billion per year is more than manageable, thats 1000 tons of LTDs, or more specifically 2 days of mining. THANK YOU FRONTIER. As for the other changes, they didnt mention material traders, but for this I dont blame them, I blame ourselves. If enough people wouldve mentioned it in the past week we would be getting material traders for hire which would even help players that dont have a carrier.

[@spacedoutorca4550]

Really puts in perspective how outrageous the upkeeps were before... when a 90% decrease is still ridiculously overpriced.

[@MerchantIvoryfilms]

So just to confirm, the carrier offers no new gameplay for the pilot of the carrier who just sits there like a rock? "Carriers" in successful games let players control AI fighter ships. And for a mer 5 billion...what an amazing piece of content -.-

[@deviousg123]

I think upkeep costs should be annual and stated up front, gives a year to prep. Don't mind the idea of paying 'staff' an annual salary, or something like that, or annual 'service and oil change' costs, just not weekly.

[@deviousg123]

If you can't pay, staff leave and the fc comes off the server, but rather than lose it do a bit of grinding to get it up and running again.

[@sam93931]

i was skeptical, cause to make those fleet carrier viable, they had to reduce up keep by like 90 % and spin up time to less than 30 min.. which I thought was extreme numbers from what it initially was. I'm impressed, they really listened ! Those big boys are viable now, not for every commanders as you gotta have a true purpose to make it worth, but good change!

[@ComandanteJ]

Upkeep is punishing enough, but, decomissioning? why the hell do you lose the carrier? Wouldn't it be enough to just de-spawn it after some time and that's it?

[@calebstone22]

My thoughts on the changes are these people either don’t play their own game which is been a long running joke or there is some underhanded manipulation going on here

[@CRG]

Any sign of a window??? All I want is a window to see the jump.

[@biplav32]

Still unacceptable.

[@LaVirek]

For many yes, but earlier there was some who intended of using them, and now there will be more. Even i will try i think.

[@revanu2140]

Incorrect

[@biplav32]

@@LaVirek They are using typical salesman tactics. Its 1000 but its 85% off right now.

[@mattyb.5628]

2:06 - While I agree in principle I assume carriers are intended to be credit sinks, such that exceedingly wealthy players have something to spend their money on. I can also see why dozens of abandoned and useless carriers with no services littered throughout the bubble could be irritating. Would be interesting to see someone start up a Colonia ferrying service, or even a ferry to Hutton Orbital.

[@r156pahlke]

How about instead of decommissioning the fleet carrier, It becomes a derelict carrier and can be restarted by someone with the right module or fuel and brought back and sold for 50% of cost in the bubble. That would make this an interesting gameplay mechanic and possibly a new profession.

[@seekertarakonna3569]

I lije this alot, i could be like a savage/ salvage space thing, i like it

[@keyloh9386]

Dude, That'd be sick! Imagine having space legs with that?! Roaming the abandoned bowels of the carrier!?!

[@pieguy6992]

As long as they add some way for FC's to automatically make buttloads of money by themselves, I think this update is turning in the right direction.

[@ashfuller3480]

Shipyards should be on the carrier when you buy the thing anyway, we don't need markets

[@twerkingtwinkies2335]

Exactly

[@ltpunkrocket522]

Huge step in the right direction. Glad to see some changes actually going in. I might actually pick back up the grind for them now that they're in a fathomable range. Though I am wondering why they don't just have the Fleet Carriers remove itself from normal space after a week of owner inactivity? Supposed larger ships can lock themselves in witch space if I remember correctly, so lore friendly way to reduce clutter would be to despawn in it or "hide it in the void" till player activity resumes.

[@adamremolacio]

WoW really missed the mark by not charging upkeep costs for auction house mounts

[@Midnight24435]

Can't help but feel manipulated here. This feels like a very real "Door-in-the-face" technique of negotiating - first propose something extravagant, then change it to something significantly more reasonable... So FDev is now cool with cutting costs by 80-90%, just like that? Why were the first numbers so outlandish to begin with? Excellent video as always, Obsidian!

[@jasondudgeon9510]

Why spend 5 billion on a "Fleet Carrier" when, right out the box, it will NOT carry your fleet? Why is what should be the basic functionality of the thing an "additional" option? I don't see why we have to install an entire shipyard just to carry a few of my ships around with me, I've no intention of buying new ships or selling new ships to others, there are 16 landing pads on the thing so why can't they be used for my own fleet? Like a lot of people, I just wanted a carrier that will do what it says on the tin, carry my ships around with a decent jump range and give me the facility to repair, refuel & restock on the basic essentials, with a nice chunk of cargo space for storage while I'm out in the black. Having all the other features as optional extras is fine, having a reasonable upkeep fee linked to those extras is fine, I just think it's pretty bloody stupid that a fleet carrier doesn't do just that right out of the box.

[@profozpin227]

This is what has bothered me the most. It is a FLEET CARRIER where you have to pay EXTRA COSTS to CARRY your FLEET. Who on Earth (pun intended) thought that was a good idea?!

[@Canadian_Ale]

What I think should happen includeds Complete removal of upkeep. Still have to pay for damage after a jump. I guess would be around 50,000-75,000 Fuel would be slightly cheaper and you can jump 6 times on a full tank. Spinnup time is reduced to 10 minutes while a cooldown would probably be around 5 minutes. That's more than enough time to refuel rearm and get off the fleet carrier before it jumps. And lastly a medium price reduction on modules. 40-50% decrease Universal cartography (I'm putting this one at the bottom because I'm not sure if it's in the game) NPCs can interact with your Fleet barrier and will trade and receive credits. This will be for people that mostly play in private or solo mode. obviously it won't be as effective as players trading with your carrier but I'd say maybe getting an average of like 500k-1 million credits a day. It would be good to have a slight relief from The grind.

[@prototypesend7075]

I like how fleet carriers still offer no purposeful gameplay. They make nothing easier, serve no combat purpose, jump range is still ass, and having an upkeep cost is still a horrible idea.

[@edstretton2214]

Mothballing mechanics would be a godsend. Allow players to retain purchased carriers/upgrades over a longer period of time by mothballing (deactivating) them. This would disable the mothballed features, and allow players to play the game more intermittently without suffering penalty. This could be balanced with a reinstatement fee and a cooldown. E.g. 10-20% of missed maintenance payments due to mothballing, and a mothballing cool-down of 7-30 days.

[@popculture70]

They reduced some of the numbers from absurd and insulting to passable and acceptable. Give them a medal! Yes, now it is actually viable to take this thing on deep space exploration missions. That's good. I still think what they've delivered is nothing more than the absolute bare minimum. There's no wow factor here. It's functional at best. There's no bridge, no new animations. It's the absolute minimum amount of work they could get away with, and considering the time this has taken to put out there, it's still pretty disappointing and doesn't bode well for the future.

[@simonmills7859]

ObsidianAnt aswell of the Fleet Carrier. I would of like to see a small AI fleet of ships to make help maintain your carrier as I cant see many players making any money for the cost especially the casual player and just feels like another way for developers take more credits out of the game due to there over sights or exploits that they made some commanders used to get ridiculously rich killing a little game play for themselves. Cant wait for the next Video as I enjoy hearing your opinion on what the dev's are doing with the game. Keep it up Mate!

[@romancenturion8]

FC don't add anything to the gameplay we didn't already have. Change my mind.

[@keyloh9386]

Not if you engage in BGS wars with squadrons. Think about it. You can now have a base of operations parked anywhere you want in a system, so if the conflict zones are super far apart and you have any of the big 3 ships as your combat ship, and either the ports are far away or don't have large pads, you can land, refuel, rearm, and repair. On top of that, if you all complete wing missions and you're using your squad mates services on the carrier they also make some money and get supported by you. There are plenty of ways to turn this around from being shit to actually making a profit. I honestly think they should change the name to Squadron carriers cause looking at how to make money on your own with these I can see why everyone hates them.

[@romancenturion8]

@@keyloh9386 Interesting perspective and I am glad they'll have a use for some people. I still believe Fdev should've spent their time making more versatile content that more people could enjoy however.

[@keyloh9386]

@@romancenturion8 I agree. Instead of scraping the support ships entirely I would rather them make them into smaller carriers with no up keep, despawn if adandoned and have a small fee for reactivation near a carrier port... There's plenty more they could have done.

[@AdamantJedi]

Fairly new to the game and from what I understand you have to have a shipyard to store your ships. So, I'm curious as to why they are called Fleet Carriers when the stock ship only comes equipped with a Commodities Market?