A new type of **real** Carrier

[Beppe_Caruso]

@Linus_Gorp

I asked you a vital question twice already, but all you managed to do was ignore it. I suppose you can’t answer it, can you?

Vital question ? Who’s going to die if I do not answer it ?
If by that you mean “Important” … which of your many questions about how I came to posting do you mean ?

Beppe

[Linus_Gorp]

But if you really want to go there, what does your idea add in actual gameplay short of facilitating AFK gameplay (that CCP is removing plenty of)? Why should this ever be implemented in the game short of “I think it would be cool”?

[Beppe_Caruso]

@Linus_Gorp

But if you really want to go there, what does your idea add in actual gameplay short of facilitating AFK gameplay (that CCP is removing plenty of)? Why should this ever be implemented in the game short of “I think it would be cool”?

@Beppe_Caruso

The other idea I had is that whilst docked, the pilot does not show in Local chat but only on a shipwide channel. I believe that would mix up things a little bit because currently you always have a good clue who’s coming to ruin your day. By not showing in local until the pilot or the carrier actually undocks said vessel … it’s anyones guessing game what they bring and how many.

Again, it’s already in my first post. Not knowing what’s on the carrier in terms of ships and pilots until they undock, I think that would shake things up a little.
At this point, unless you are in w-space, you have Local to tell you how many and, unless cloaked, D-Scan to tell you what.

With only the carrier pilot being visible and only his ship on D-Scan … you’ll never know if there are 24 frigs being launched or 12 Frigs and 6 Cruisers ( random type of vessel, just for the purpose of e.g. )

Or you just can jump in 10 of these crafts without anything on them and your opponents have to do visual recon of the ship ( whilst you deploy another carrier group somewhere else with the real punch ).

There are soooo many options as to what you can do with them, but I still think that introducing a new “unknown” factor is the main thing I like about it.

Beppe

[Linus_Gorp]

So you want a cynosural field generator. Just as a ship and way worse, in a way that doesn’t even make any sense (as has been pointed out by others already).

[Beppe_Caruso]

@Linus_Gorp

So you want a cynosural field generator. Just as a ship and way worse, in a way that doesn’t even make any sense (as has been pointed out by others already).

If that is your conclusion. So be it

Fly safe.

Beppe

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Beppe_Caruso

So, currently there is no real carrier in the game, imho, but only oversized drone carriers ( fighters ). The name carrier applies to some extend, but when I think about a carrier I imagine it more a carrier carrying ships & pilots, not drones.

Legacy Code says no. One person per ship, no more and no less. Otherwise the servers start excreting masonry all over the place.

CCP has flatly stated this to be the case several times.

This idea is literally older in Eve than I am and it’s been addressed several times. You don’t have to believe us, but you’re wasting your breath either way.

[Beppe_Caruso]

@Cade_Windstalker

Legacy Code says no. One person per ship, no more and no less. Otherwise the servers start excreting masonry all over the place.

And that is why it’s not multiple players per ship. It’s still one player per ship.
The mechanics would be different from having multiple players in the same ship. The transported ships are connected to and transported by the carrier but not in the same ship.
It still would follow the “one ship = one person” but allows for connected ships to be transported.

Beppe

[March_rabbit]

@JC_Mieyli

fine as already mentioned the code wont allow it
you chose to ignore it because its not ccp reply which you think you deserve

And he is right. Unless you are one working with the code your opinion is just your opinion.

@JC_Mieyli

you used to carry player pods in beta they can only see a black screen and nothing else
so it was removed

Bad design led to removing of feature. Does it mean the feature is bad? I guess it does not.
Instead of “black screen” pilots could have access to screen of mothership pilot. Etc, etc…

@JC_Mieyli

too much griefing when you can hold other players hostage in your own ship with nothing but a black screen

It does not when you have more than “black screen” when carried. Again: bad design means bad idea in your opinion?

@JC_Mieyli

afk gameplay as mentioned

Not much more than autopilot. And the same level of risk.

[Beppe_Caruso]

@March_rabbit

Not much more than autopilot. And the same level of risk.

It’s less risky since the carrier pilot can WTZ.
On the other hand, he can warp to the wrong gate, thru the wrong system or simply deploy you at the wrong moment.

All sorts of mishaps ( intentional or not ) could happen and the only choice you have is to either stick with the carrier pilot or deploy your ship.

[JC_Mieyli]

@March_rabbit

Bad design led to removing of feature.

how can it be bad design if it was never part of the design

[March_rabbit]

@JC_Mieyli

you used to carry player pods in beta they can only see a black screen and nothing else

Repeating YOUR post again. “Black screen and nothing else” in this situation either bad design or bad implementation. My bet on bad design. If you have more reliable information then i’m ok with that.

@Beppe_Caruso

It’s less risky since the carrier pilot can WTZ.
On the other hand, he can warp to the wrong gate, thru the wrong system or simply deploy you at the wrong moment.

All sorts of mishaps ( intentional or not ) could happen and the only choice you have is to either stick with the carrier pilot or deploy your ship.

Well… WTZ is not that cool these days when people camp other side of a gate But yeah, if mothership pilot is afk then his mistake will cost more than 1 dead ship and pod…
So i guess risk is the more the less equal when comparing to simple autopiloting.

[JC_Mieyli]

@March_rabbit

My bet on bad design

my bet on they never wanted it in the game
hence why they never put it in the game

[Do_Little]

Existing carriers have a 1 million M3 ship maintenance bay and can carry 7 or 8 fitted cruisers - they just can’t carry the pilots. No ship in Eve can carry another player as a passenger and I suspect we’ll all be walking in stations long before that makes it to the top of the backlog.

Given that piloted cruisers could travel much faster on their own, it isn’t obvious what benefit you would gain by using a ship like this. Put the carrier pilot in a command/logi/ewar ship instead so he can contribute to the mission.

[Beppe_Caruso]

@Do_Little

Given that piloted cruisers could travel much faster on their own, it isn’t obvious what benefit you would gain by using a ship like this.

I actually did go into that.

@Beppe_Caruso

Again, it’s already in my first post. Not knowing what’s on the carrier in terms of ships and pilots until they undock, I think that would shake things up a little.
At this point, unless you are in w-space, you have Local to tell you how many and, unless cloaked, D-Scan to tell you what.

With only the carrier pilot being visible and only his ship on D-Scan … you’ll never know if there are 24 frigs being launched or 12 Frigs and 6 Cruisers ( random type of vessel, just for the purpose of e.g. )

Or you just can jump in 10 of these crafts without anything on them and your opponents have to do visual recon of the ship ( whilst you deploy another carrier group somewhere else with the real punch ).

There are soooo many options as to what you can do with them, but I still think that introducing a new “unknown” factor is the main thing I like about it.

[Linus_Gorp]

@March_rabbit

Repeating YOUR post again. “Black screen and nothing else” in this situation either bad design or bad implementation. My bet on bad design. If you have more reliable information then i’m ok with that.

It was a bug, not a feature. Scooping other players’ pods into your cargohold wasn’t intended and you could get into trouble if you did it.

[Beppe_Caruso]

@Linus_Gorp

It was a bug, not a feature. Scooping other players’ pods into your cargohold wasn’t intended and you could get into trouble if you did it.

In that case, mentioning in is thread has nothing to do with my idea for a feature.

It was a bug, got squished … and that should have been the end of the story since it has no relevance whatsoever at this point.
You relating it to a feature I have an idea for ? … ts ts ts ts

Sorry,

Beppe

[Linus_Gorp]

@Beppe_Caruso

You relating it to a feature I have an idea for ? … ts ts ts ts

Except it wasn’t me that brought it up. I just clarified it with additional information…

Makes me wonder if you’re capable of thinking at all.

[Beppe_Caruso]

@Linus_Gorp

Except it wasn’t me that brought it up. I just clarified it with additional information…

Makes me wonder if you’re capable of thinking at all.

In the form of a question, I could have answered that.
But as a statement … I believe you could consider it an insult ?

Correct me if I am wrong.

Beppe

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Beppe_Caruso

And that is why it’s not multiple players per ship. It’s still one player per ship.
The mechanics would be different from having multiple players in the same ship. The transported ships are connected to and transported by the carrier but not in the same ship.
It still would follow the “one ship = one person” but allows for connected ships to be transported.

But in code that’s what this is. It’s taking a ship object and assigning multiple players to it. The code I’m talking about has nothing to do with piloting, it’s simply that the way the game is architect-ed you can’t have two players sharing space in a ship object. If you did this and tried to jump through a gate the session change error log would give MC Escher a headache.

Seriously, why do you not believe it when half a dozen different people come forward and say “this has been proposed before, CCP responded, Legacy code says no”?

[SurrenderMonkey]

Hmmm.

• Minimal utility?
• Difficult to implement?
• Solid potential for abuse?

Yep, I’m in Player F&I, alright.