You define legitimate criticism just simply saying Legacy Code and thus dismissing any further discussion of the idea, really ?
That I am obstinate, well … you’re right.
Sure, but are you talking about not liking the idea and “downvoting” it or going after the person posting the idea ?
I’ve done my due diligence and I am aware of the limitations that everybody is mentioning. That’s why my idea tries to work around that limitation.
Right, you described a Titan ! Now what ? I guess that you are unable to understand my idea !
I get it, not everybody can go outside existing game mechanics.
I guess we have reached the point where your posts contain more “You have …” than "The idea …"
If you want to continue to insult me on a personal level … feel free, you’re rage brightens my day !
Right. And once you step beyond the lore into the game mechanics, the simple fact is it will always be more effective and efficient to have each pilot using their own jump-capable ship instead of tracking/linking positions etc with a single hull’s location.
Because that’s what docking one ship inside another does from a code perspective. Ships have one ‘slot’ for a player, that’s it, and the code assumes this. You’re talking about adding more player objects to a single ship object, whether you understand it like that or not.
Which also doesn’t work, for a huge number of reasons starting with the problems with effectively sending pilot commands to multiple ships, since that’s the only way you’re going to get those other hulls into warp with you.
Considering people in this thread have made every attempt to explain to you why this doesn’t work and why it would be a huge work effort to get it to work, yes I’d say obstinate is a pretty good term for your attitude here.
Ah, I think we may have found the disconnect here. Your idea to work around the limitations doesn’t work. If you want to have one person carrying around other players there’s really only one way to do it that’s even remotely feasible, and that way is to have multiple player objects carried around by a ship. The problem with this method is that it doesn’t work, at all, with how Eve is structured right now. Getting it to work would require a massive restructuring of Eve’s base code. How it handles ships and players and session changes.
That’s why your idea is infeasible to the point that discussing the actual mechanics of the idea itself is a largely pointless exercise. It’s like discussing what humanity would do if we had a colony on Alpha Centauri, there are so many other steps between here and there that the actual discussion has very little practical worth even as a hypothetical.
from what i understand the biggest road block to this (at least as explained by fozzi) was how the game couldn’t have two players in the same “spot”. this however was also a major issue in citadels and was solved. so it may be possible to bring carriers up to their original plan
To describe fighters as drones is a damn travesty. I wouldn’t compare carriers to regular drone boats, their capabilities are much much much different and already have their roles to fill. I don’t see what advantage this would give you aside from ruining a ship class just so your fleet doesn’t have to move like a blob until it’s time to deploy… Like a blob.
You do know the ops idea was the original intent right? I for one would love this. It would make true nomadic groups possible in wh space. Log off in the carrier and not get left behind
Citadels don’t change systems though, and player ships do. See: The Citadel Trade exploit that allowed people to teleport Capital ships.
So while Citadels could certainly, at one point when they were bugged, move around Eve they could never jump gates and there’s no reason to assume that the systems that handle gate transitions would take kindly to a group of players in a single ship jumping between systems.
In all fairness, I see how it happens, as the suggested topic lists don’t really change with time. I’m also mostly cool with reopening threads rather than starting new threads that are based on commonly discussed topics… up to a point.
In this case I think it’s fine, I was just being snarky really.
?