Carrier movement delay


#1

If I have a carrier set to a delay (ie I’ve entered a number other than 0 under delay) will it continue to Collect All until the time it leaves? It seems to me like it does not, though it should. It is possible to make this happen just by clicking the same star a number of times while creating the way points, but it can be a lot faster to do and easier to adjust after the fact if the delay option would achieve the same result.


#2

No, if you would like it to collect all, select that current star as a waypoint, then add your number to the delay box -1 for the Tick it takes to Orbit the star (what it is doing for that extra waypoint) and have that first order be Collect All. The delay needs to be in that new waypoint, so it delays, then ‘returns’ to the current star to collect before leaving for a different star.

Carriers only follow orders when arriving at a waypoint. This is the workaround to that. Carriers with Drop type orders are supposed to drop prior to those Collecting, so long as they are both arriving at the star at the same time.


#3

@Brian_Flowers, you are wrong when you say “Carriers with Drop type orders are supposed to drop prior to those Collecting”. According to the Triton Codex:

“Carrier actions are not sorted in a particular order, so if two fleets arrive at a star in the same tick, there is no guarantee that one will drop ships off before the other tries to pick them up. To ensure this happens as expected you should make sure the pick up happens a tick after the drop off.”


#4

Not quite how I would have phrased it Arth, but whatever.

Anyway, I don’t know the last time the Codex was updated, but I though at some point the code had been updated to apply Drop orders before Collect orders. I suspect Jay will have to answer this one way or another.


#5

@Brian_Flowers, sorry, I didn’t mean to be rude. Anyway, if you are right and the Codex is wrong, this should be fixed. I know there are some things missing there, and this is not a major problem, but should not have anything misleading.


#6

Jay is a one man band. Often he will make updates to the game that don’t alway get into the Codex. I’m not saying that this definitely is a case, I just recall it being discussed before, and seem to remember Jay addressing it.


#7

yeah… so. I did try and fix this, but players reported all kinds of weird stuff happening so I rolled the change back and didn’t get a chance to look at it again.

The codex is correct at the moment, even though I would like to change the rules so it works as it should one day soon.


#8

There should be a wiki, for the community to fill the holes of the Codex. And it should be linked in the Codex. That way we would have a great documentation of the rules and details of the game.


#9

I would rather fix the codex. If you spot any errors please point them out and I will try and fix them ASAP!


#10

Jay, I think the wiki would be more than just fixing the Codex. Of course, there should not be anything wrong in the Codex, but the wiki could be a very detailed documentation of the rules, where the Codex should be a starter’s guide. Each with it’s own purpose. And, being a wiki, it wouldn’t increase the burden on you to keep it always updated.