# A new type of \*\*real\*\* Carrier **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Created:** [July 10, 2017, 2:06pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438 "2017-07-10T14:06:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cade\_Windstalker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cade_windstalker/32/221037_2.png) [@Cade\_Windstalker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cade_Windstalker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2017, 1:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/101 "2017-10-24T13:19:17Z")
> [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > I have been getting my blops at a bargin… > > besides I see nothing wrong with being able to move around with a very limited number of friends when RL makes it hard for you to log in At which point you’re pretty severely limited in what ships can jump to a few types of Frigate and Cruiser and the ship executing the Bridge still costs something like 1.3b plus fittings and fuel. That specific case isn’t too bad, but that quickly turns into paid taxies and all sorts of other abuses of the system. > [@noone\_kun](#): > > as far as i can see it, thise ship carrier is possible and may be useful. to say more it allready exists. parts of it. CCP has flat out said that it’s not possible with the way Eve is currently structured. What we know from Fanfest and Eve Vegas presentations about sessions, player data, and session changes supports this. While it’s clear at least a few blockers were removed with Citadels there’s nothing to suggest that they’ve all been removed, and in fact some issues Citadels have had like the Trading across systems exploit suggest they’re very much not all fixed. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/102 "2017-10-24T14:52:28Z")
> [@Cade\_Windstalker](#): > > CCP has flat out said that it’s not possible with the way Eve is currently structured but the structure they were talking about was two players occupying the same space that was the biggest problem and it was solved. these things are far more cumbersome to use than a titan or a blops and anyone who has the numbers to break things with this mechanic already has those ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2017, 12:18am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/103 "2017-10-25T00:18:24Z")
You’re all forgetting this can already be done in a roundabout fashion 😛 Titan with a clone vat bay while carrying ships in the ship maintenance bay, thats the closest we’re ever going to get to his idea of a carrier ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_Windstalker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cade_windstalker/32/221037_2.png) [@Cade\_Windstalker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cade_Windstalker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/104 "2017-10-25T13:50:11Z")
> [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > but the structure they were talking about was two players occupying the same space that was the biggest problem and it was solved. > > these things are far more cumbersome to use than a titan or a blops and anyone who has the numbers to break things with this mechanic already has those Except, as I’ve stated repeatedly, that wasn’t the only problem and it was only solved for the in-space part of the game, not the session change part of the game. See again, trading across Citadels across Systems, because sessions don’t understand Citadels still. Never underestimate the ability for players to break things in new and interesting ways when given new and interesting tools. If your argument for including something is “but it wouldn’t really change much” that’s a lousy argument in favor of something but a pretty fantastic one against it. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2017, 1:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/105 "2017-10-25T13:55:11Z")
but it was stated to be the biggest problem. I never said the only problem. but if we are crossing off options simply because there may be problems implementing it then we best not add anything. same goes with chances of people breaking something with it. those arguments can be used against anything proposed to be added to the game except my argument wasn’t that it wouldn’t really change much. my argument was that it wouldn’t change much in the area you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_Windstalker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cade_windstalker/32/221037_2.png) [@Cade\_Windstalker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cade_Windstalker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2017, 2:02pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/106 "2017-10-25T14:02:36Z")
> [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > but it was stated to be the biggest problem. I never said the only problem. but if we are crossing off options simply because there may be problems implementing it then we best not add anything. same goes with chances of people breaking something with it. those arguments can be used against anything proposed to be added to the game > > except my argument wasn’t that it wouldn’t really change much. my argument was that it wouldn’t change much in the area you were talking about. I think you’re overstating how much emphasis CCP put on the two people one hull problem for why this doesn’t work. Also, as something of a side note, we don’t know _how_ Citadels solved the problem and it may not be one that’s compatible with this sort of setup, especially with CCP now trying to make the game granular on the grid level as opposed to the system level. Regardless the argument is not and has never been “there might be problems, lets not”. The problem, as I stated before, is one of time required vs benefit to the game and to players. This feature seems to have a fairly high time investment required to get it working by even the most optimistic accounts, and the main thing it enables is simply the AFK transport of players. That’s a lot of work for something that’s questionable as to whether it’s even a benefit or not. To me that equation screams “nope, not happening”. If there’s some other effect of this that I’ve missed somehow then please point it out. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2017, 2:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/107 "2017-10-25T14:04:44Z")
so we don’t know what the problems are and we don’t know how many if any were solved but you do know it will be too time intensive. and it opens up entirely new gameplay options not just afk transport of players ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_Windstalker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cade_windstalker/32/221037_2.png) [@Cade\_Windstalker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cade_Windstalker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/108 "2017-10-25T14:08:15Z")
> [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > so we don’t know what the problems are and we don’t know how many if any were solved but you do know it will be too time intensive. Didn’t say that, I said I feel you’re over-stating the emphasis CCP put on it. My recollection from several years of presentations is that the problem here is that the _entire server_ is built on the assumption of one player, one ship, from in-space features to session changes, to how the different servers (market, player data, system, ect) interact. As I’ve pointed out throughout this thread we have pretty strong evidence that Citadels are still a long way from solving all of these issues just from some of the interesting ways they’ve broken. > [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > and it opens up entirely new gameplay options not just afk transport of players Then please point some out. The only thing I can remotely think of is AFK transporting players to a fight and then spitting them out, but we can already do that with a Cyno more conveniently and if you’re going to fly players to a fight gate to gate then a fleet of ships will move faster and be less vulnerable than a single Freighter. ---
**Author:** ![Valdr\_Auduin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/valdr_auduin/32/22072_2.png) [@Valdr\_Auduin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Valdr_Auduin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2018, 7:41pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/109 "2018-05-01T19:41:18Z")
I know I’m playing with the dead here, but the idea of ‘supercarriers’ that are coded as Citadels and having both something passable as ship-class mobility on a grid, if only barely, while also operating under a reinforce timer and being destroyed by the Cits’ seige mechanics is both hilarious and interesting. The real question is that, since they can’t use gates and don’t have the same module qualities as ships, would they rely on cyno-support to jump? Gives me a Deathstar-towed-by-tugboats feeling, it’s like an ewok with a raycaster. ED: it would be an excuse to add in Small Citadel rigs also, now that I think of it. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2018, 8:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438/110 "2018-05-01T20:35:11Z")
> [@Valdr\_Auduin](#): > > 6 months later > > I know I’m playing with the dead here ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/1/5/1527ada53ebf98dc34e24b54514bc5b40093525e.png) [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-new-type-of-real-carrier/9438.md?page=5)