Carriers - a plea to Frontier from a lowly miners perspective

Yeah, i've done exploration in both Kraits, but i keep coming back to the Asp.

Maybe one day, when i get a FC, i'll move to something even smaller for exploration. Something with very good SC manouverability and high speed for zooming over canyons, although of course, i'll be taking my racing Viper with me as well anyway.
 
Sometimes parody goes over my head. e.g. Players that love mining but declare they won't have enough credits to afford a Carrier sounds like a contradiction.
Call me crazy, but I think there's a difference between loving mining, and avoiding grinding. To get rich enough to afford a Carrier via mining involves grinding: restricting yourself to one activity, performed on on one mineral, done in one location, ad nauseam. There's many minerals you can mine, though, which can be obtained through many activities, which can be obtained in many locations. It's just that most of those minerals only pay a fraction of a percent of what LTD mining can obtain.

It's a bit like someone saying they enjoy smuggling, but didn't get rich because they didn't do the Robigo runs ad nauseam either. You can apply that to pretty much every credit exploit gold rush seen in the game to date. Just because a player enjoys an activity, doesn't mean they'll deliberately seek out to ruin their experience by grinding to maximize their credits/hour rate.
 
Just wanted to get ahead of the people telling me i'm wrong ;)
Disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as forbidding the opinion ;)

Isnt the Op's idea sort of aligned with Your opinions anyway

They want more effective mining, to take less time; you want less mining per jump.

The issue the OP is worried about if fuel being so effective you can go anywhere and back and not need to worry about mining.

I am assuming of course when you write "I want refuel requirements as low as possible" you dont advocate being able to cross the galaxy and back on a hold of Tritium, but rather not be held hostage by the time needed to mine, but you do speak of mining so I assume you do expect the requirement to refuel out in the black.

Then what the OP suggests does support you views as do you not want FDev to "make mining tritium more rewarding and give us different ways to extract it."

If mining is more effective, less mining you need to do, AND with the Fleet Carrier grand bazaar there is the opportunity that you can have other Cmdrs do the mining whilst out in the black since the more effective mining and a good purchase offer price on your carrier might be an incentive for them to have a change of pace and mine after Repair/refuel/restock and UC data drop.

Just might require a bit of advertising
 
Disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as forbidding the opinion ;)

Isnt the Op's idea sort of aligned with Your opinions anyway

They want more effective mining, to take less time; you want less mining per jump.

The issue the OP is worried about if fuel being so effective you can go anywhere and back and not need to worry about mining.

I am assuming of course when you write "I want refuel requirements as low as possible" you dont advocate being able to cross the galaxy and back on a hold of Tritium, but rather not be held hostage by the time needed to mine, but you do speak of mining so I assume you do expect the requirement to refuel out in the black.

Then what the OP suggests does support you views as do you not want FDev to "make mining tritium more rewarding and give us different ways to extract it."

If mining is more effective, less mining you need to do, AND with the Fleet Carrier grand bazaar there is the opportunity that you can have other Cmdrs do the mining whilst out in the black since the more effective mining and a good purchase offer price on your carrier might be an incentive for them to have a change of pace and mine after Repair/refuel/restock and UC data drop.

Just might require a bit of advertising
Well, FD already said they are changing things for release. We will need to wait and see how they change it.
 
Call me crazy, but I think there's a difference between loving mining, and avoiding grinding. To get rich enough to afford a Carrier via mining involves grinding: restricting yourself to one activity, performed on on one mineral, done in one location, ad nauseam. There's many minerals you can mine, though, which can be obtained through many activities, which can be obtained in many locations. It's just that most of those minerals only pay a fraction of a percent of what LTD mining can obtain.

It's a bit like someone saying they enjoy smuggling, but didn't get rich because they didn't do the Robigo runs ad nauseam either. You can apply that to pretty much every credit exploit gold rush seen in the game to date. Just because a player enjoys an activity, doesn't mean they'll deliberately seek out to ruin their experience by grinding to maximize their credits/hour rate.
I laser mined for credits starting in April, first time for me. One session per day for 3 weeks and some days I did other things so it wasn't even that consistent. I started with 7 billions in the bank: I already had enough for a good start with a FC. For 3 weeks off an on, I would go to Borann and mine in open. Fought CMDR pirates in Borann. Took my 256t of LTDs to the buying system, in open, and sometimes fought pirates there as well. All of this is well documented. I had fun even though I'm not a miner. Do you consider that a grind?
 
The Asp will be my scanning ship and the Dropship my SRV carrier.
Have you considered a Dolphin, which can do both? I find it's a wonderful scout/scan/map vehicle, a little shy on cargo space but I have a Python for that. Properly engineered, the Dolphin has excellent jump range and is faster than my FDL in realspace.
 
Last edited:
Have you considered a Dolphin, which can do both? I find it's a wonderful scout/scan/map vehicle, a little shy on cargo space but I have a Python for that. Properly engineered, the Dolphin has excellent jump range and is faster than my FDL in realspace.
I've had a dolphin but i like to separate ships by roles. My Asp has a SRV anyway. That's fine for doing stuff as i explore a region. However, if i find somewhere that i want to spend more time, then i'll return to the FC, jump it over, the pull out the Dropship which carries 8 SRVs for planetary fun and shennanigans.
 
I laser mined for credits starting in April, first time for me. One session per day for 3 weeks and some days I did other things so it wasn't even that consistent. I started with 7 billions in the bank: I already had enough for a good start with a FC. For 3 weeks off an on, I would go to Borann and mine in open. Fought CMDR pirates in Borann. Took my 256t of LTDs to the buying system, in open, and sometimes fought pirates there as well. All of this is well documented. I had fun even though I'm not a miner. Do you consider that a grind?
A grind? No.

I would, however, consider it a self-inflicted way of ruining my enjoyment of this game. Frontier has done enough of that already, via credit income inflation, as it is. No need to do it to myself by going LTD mining.
 
A grind? No.

I would, however, consider it a self-inflicted way of ruining my enjoyment of this game. Frontier has done enough of that already, via credit income inflation, as it is. No need to do it to myself by going LTD mining.
By all means, do NOT ruin your enjoyment of the game. I support this.
 
--- and for what its worth the OP has had more positive rep than nearly any other thread on this forum. I'm happy that the silent majority are in agreement with him and hope FD listen.

No more dumbing down of Carriers, please!
I hardly think that asking for a game tweak that doesn't involve hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of mining is necessarily "dumbing down" of carriers.
More like catering for a single player who wants to use his ship for exploration and making it plausible.

Remember this is the first real content addition for gawd knows how long and we should all get to use it, not just the perceived "elite" of the player base that have a 300 person squadron that can do fuel runs and kill thargoids at the same time with one hand tied behind their backs.

The fact is most of us also have job that takes up 8 - 10 hours of our day Monday to Friday so we don't have the time to play elite all day. What time we do have to play, we want to use the 5 billion content addition, not just fuelling it all night.
Plus remember, ELITE was originally a single player experience. Multi player came later.
Most of us have done the anaconda/asp thing. the carrier is new so we would like to use it.
It is the responsible of the developers to make the system work in a way to cater for all aspects of the player base

The beta showed that the carriers are welcomed by most people but they have to cater for everyone. If there had been more than one variant, large and small with different fuel reqs and efficiencies then it might have been more interesting and catering for everyone but they didn't.

Not meaning to offend anyone.
Stay Safe Everyone.
 
By all means, do NOT ruin your enjoyment of the game. I support this.
So do I. ;)

It’s the primary reason why I only have a billion in assets, plus maybe 2.5 in exploration data. I prefer tomake meaningful decisions in games, to way pros and cons. I want to be pushed out of my comfort zone, whether that comfort zone is legal, moral, technological, skill, or knowledge. Sadly, that rarely describes ED anymore. I wanted to play a poor prospector in this game, taking risks to get the cash to improve my ship.

Problem is, what I most enjoy in games is incompatible with the type of player who wants ED to be a casual game. If this had been a single-player game, we could’ve been both satisfied because we could choose options that match our gaming personality. This is an MMO, though, so one of, or more like both of us are going to be dissatisfied by our experiences in the game.

Fleet Carriers are a prime example of how the demands of single-player gamers has all but ruined what could’ve been a fun, and challenging, multi-player game mechanic. The changes to FCs in Beta 2 have pretty much killed exploration-oriented Fleet Carriers from community hubs, where a team of scouts and miners would need to coordinate to get a FC anywher. Now, IIRC, FCs can make round trips to about 70% of the Galaxy, no mining required... just moving fuel by the T9 load ad nauseam.

Oh well... for a few weeks, I had the fun of trying to figure out how to make an FCs self-sustainable out in the black. Now that requirements are a tithe if what they used to be, that challenge us gone. :(
 
So do I. ;)

It’s the primary reason why I only have a billion in assets, plus maybe 2.5 in exploration data. I prefer tomake meaningful decisions in games, to way pros and cons. I want to be pushed out of my comfort zone, whether that comfort zone is legal, moral, technological, skill, or knowledge. Sadly, that rarely describes ED anymore. I wanted to play a poor prospector in this game, taking risks to get the cash to improve my ship.

Problem is, what I most enjoy in games is incompatible with the type of player who wants ED to be a casual game. If this had been a single-player game, we could’ve been both satisfied because we could choose options that match our gaming personality. This is an MMO, though, so one of, or more like both of us are going to be dissatisfied by our experiences in the game.

Fleet Carriers are a prime example of how the demands of single-player gamers has all but ruined what could’ve been a fun, and challenging, multi-player game mechanic. The changes to FCs in Beta 2 have pretty much killed exploration-oriented Fleet Carriers from community hubs, where a team of scouts and miners would need to coordinate to get a FC anywher. Now, IIRC, FCs can make round trips to about 70% of the Galaxy, no mining required... just moving fuel by the T9 load ad nauseam.

Oh well... for a few weeks, I had the fun of trying to figure out how to make an FCs self-sustainable out in the black. Now that requirements are a tithe if what they used to be, that challenge us gone. :(
Im sorry m8 but the romantic notion of "poor prospector" disappeared with the advent of hotspots and high yield mining In a nutshell Borann.. sidewinder to anaconda in 8 hours or something, thanks to double and triple hotspot mining. LTD, painite etc
Not the fault of the community at all, but more of a design flaw within the game. Whether it was single or multi players, the end result would be the same.

There is still plenty of scope with what your suggesting regarding groups. Just go out with the full tank of 1000t of fuel. That'll get you a few thousand light years then you all would have to muck in.
Didn't they design Elite to be what you make of it? a sandbox to do what you please.

You could either take a FC out with 28000 tone of fuel by your self or with a group of m8's with 1000t in your fuel tank forcing the logistics aspect for your own play style, although with tritium a bit easier to mine it just means you'd do it a little quicker. Still with the minimum 20 minutes between jumps theres still no way say 5 of you would fill the tank each time.

My point is its what you make of it.

Not meaning to offend anyone.
Stay Safe Everyone.
 
It is the responsible of the developers to make the system work in a way to cater for all aspects of the player base

Not meaning to offend anyone.
No offense taken at all, though I do disagree with your analysis. In particular the statement quoted above seems way off base (pun intended). "All aspects of the player base" would perforce include those unwilling to make the bank (by whatever means) needed for the purchase, those who want absolutely no responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of such a massive asset, those who feel zero effort should be required to make the carrier able to go anywhere at any time, and those who feel they should be able to obtain a carrier regardless of the lack of effort they may have invested in the game so far. These are folks who feel fully entitled to all the benefits of a carrier as long as it takes no extra effort. To "cater" to this aspect of the player base is to reduce carriers to least-common-denominator status, completely unbalanced in terms of cost/benefit ratio.

If you agree that these players are asking for too much -- a reasonable attitude as I see it -- then the responsibility of the devs is to make the carrier obtainable for all players, and it is. This is comparable to ship pricing -- it took me a couple of years to be able to afford a Corvette, make the rank required, and get it outfitted as I wanted -- this included a very long-distance jumpaConda mission to unlock a particular pair of engineers. Same for the Ram Tah Guardian discoveries mission, which was how I crossed the Explorer Elite finish line, made possible by earning the cred for my Anaconda. It also got me access to Guardian tech otherwise rather exclusive. In both cases it was a matter of paying the dues required to achieve the progress. Given the carriers' potential to reinvent many aspects of the game, it should by no means be an asset that is simple to obtain. Yet, it is, given that the principal goal of almost all missions and opportunities in the game is to make bank, and the only barrier to obtaining a carrier is earnings. It could have been placed behind a Triple Elite barrier, or like Corvettes and Cutters, been tied to BGS achievements. But in a very democratic move, all the devs require is meeting the (admittedly hefty) sticker price, and a willingness to acknowledge that it is an asset that requires attention to make it work for a Commander. But even the latter has been made almost painless by instituting a refund for decommissioning.

To make the carrier "cater to all aspects of the player base" is literally impossible, because all aspects of the player base are often mutually exclusive. Reducing fuel mining requirements would interfere with miners' opportunities to become more widely involved in furthering the game's progress. Making the carriers relatively inexpensive would make their potential less valuable and possibly interfere with being able to visit systems without running into available orbit roadblocks. Making them non-persistent would make effective squadron usage virtually impossible. There are other examples, but these address some of the loudest complaints I heve encountered.
 
No offense taken at all, though I do disagree with your analysis. In particular the statement quoted above seems way off base (pun intended). "All aspects of the player base" would perforce include those unwilling to make the bank (by whatever means) needed for the purchase, those who want absolutely no responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of such a massive asset, those who feel zero effort should be required to make the carrier able to go anywhere at any time, and those who feel they should be able to obtain a carrier regardless of the lack of effort they may have invested in the game so far. These are folks who feel fully entitled to all the benefits of a carrier as long as it takes no extra effort. To "cater" to this aspect of the player base is to reduce carriers to least-common-denominator status, completely unbalanced in terms of cost/benefit ratio.

If you agree that these players are asking for too much -- a reasonable attitude as I see it -- then the responsibility of the devs is to make the carrier obtainable for all players, and it is. This is comparable to ship pricing -- it took me a couple of years to be able to afford a Corvette, make the rank required, and get it outfitted as I wanted -- this included a very long-distance jumpaConda mission to unlock a particular pair of engineers. Same for the Ram Tah Guardian discoveries mission, which was how I crossed the Explorer Elite finish line, made possible by earning the cred for my Anaconda. It also got me access to Guardian tech otherwise rather exclusive. In both cases it was a matter of paying the dues required to achieve the progress. Given the carriers' potential to reinvent many aspects of the game, it should by no means be an asset that is simple to obtain. Yet, it is, given that the principal goal of almost all missions and opportunities in the game is to make bank, and the only barrier to obtaining a carrier is earnings. It could have been placed behind a Triple Elite barrier, or like Corvettes and Cutters, been tied to BGS achievements. But in a very democratic move, all the devs require is meeting the (admittedly hefty) sticker price, and a willingness to acknowledge that it is an asset that requires attention to make it work for a Commander. But even the latter has been made almost painless by instituting a refund for decommissioning.

To make the carrier "cater to all aspects of the player base" is literally impossible, because all aspects of the player base are often mutually exclusive. Reducing fuel mining requirements would interfere with miners' opportunities to become more widely involved in furthering the game's progress. Making the carriers relatively inexpensive would make their potential less valuable and possibly interfere with being able to visit systems without running into available orbit roadblocks. Making them non-persistent would make effective squadron usage virtually impossible. There are other examples, but these address some of the loudest complaints I heve encountered.
Sorry m8, but that wasn't really an analysis in any shape or form, just a few offhand comments on my opinion of why mining for fuel should not be a full time job for a single player carrier owner if he wants to venture outside the bubble.. that's all.

"All aspects of the player base" was an inference for single and multiplayer alike, which I'm pretty sure you knew already.
My meaning being that the developers have to cater for both single and multi player and not bias to one or the other, but again I'm sure you knew that too.

Not meaning to offend anyone.
Stay Safe Everyone.
 
Last edited:
"All aspects of the player base" was an inference for single and multiplayer alike, which I'm pretty sure you knew already.
My meaning being that the developers have to cater for both single and multi player and not bias to one or the other, but again I'm sure you knew that too.

Not meaning to offend anyone.
Wow, you're so clarivoyant to know what I am thinking! Also completely wrong.
 
Top Bottom