You need the upkeep costs to stop Fleet Carrier blockades. Why should someone who doesn't play anymore have the ability to block players who might then spend more?
Buying Fleet carrier with ARX
- Thread starter lysan
- Start date
Actually, that sounds like a fair compromise.
FC upkeep with the same currency used for the acquisition.
Credits FC, credits upkeep
ARX FC, ARX upkeep
Well I agree that they should be somehow destroyable or at least let us capture one, however FDEV really need to do it right then there is a lot of potential awesome gameplay around the FC.
The trouble with making carriers destroyable is that by their nature attacks cannot be avoided which while clubbers would love it non combat players would loathe it. It would destroy things like DSSA.
Just make it very hard, like you need to infiltrate the FC and place explosives in the engine bay and let the FC owner setup security teams and defence systems, if the FC is destroyed the owner will receive a new one from the insurance but it will take time to construct a new one. So much potential gameplay around the FC they never tapped into.
So many downsides for the owner now if the costs to the vandal were equivalent in how much of their game time was totally disrupted and ruined…
It would still be an appalling idea.
Last edited:
Sorry but total b s imho, especially when having paid for a FC with Arx... ymmv though but that's as I see it
Play in SOLO case closed, it's that easy. FC can only be attacked when the owner is online and in OPEN mode.
Carriers exist in all modes, Solo, Open and PG, the entire point is they can be accessed when the pilot is offline so friends and squad members can park there, they can trade while offline, opening a can of worms there!
Those using the slippery slope argument in regards to Frontier offering early access for new ships and the jump start packages are engaging in a logical fallacy. I'm not saying it couldn't become a slippery slope but the fallacious aspect is that it doesn't have to follow as a logical step at all, and presenting it so is misleading at best.
Also, the jumpstart packages being pay to win is just plain wrong at this point. However, I would say that offering a Fleet Carrier for Arx would qualify as pay to win, but even if they did that, how much Arx would it cost to justify the most massive and expensive end game ship in the game? $20-40 ain't cutting it. I'd say it would be approaching Star Citizen levels of price with a Fleet Carrier being priced around $500-$1000 to justify what you're getting, and if they skip the upkeep, then I'd definitely say go higher than that.
I think it would be a very bad move to offer a Fleet Carrier for Arx, and IMO Frontier shouldn't entertain the idea at all. However, some more carrier layouts and other cosmetics would actually be very welcome at this point, and I think would more than suffice to be a nice purchasable item for those who wish to support Frontier and get something cool whilst doing so.
TL
R - Fleet Carrier for Arx? Absolutely not.
Also, the jumpstart packages being pay to win is just plain wrong at this point. However, I would say that offering a Fleet Carrier for Arx would qualify as pay to win, but even if they did that, how much Arx would it cost to justify the most massive and expensive end game ship in the game? $20-40 ain't cutting it. I'd say it would be approaching Star Citizen levels of price with a Fleet Carrier being priced around $500-$1000 to justify what you're getting, and if they skip the upkeep, then I'd definitely say go higher than that.
I think it would be a very bad move to offer a Fleet Carrier for Arx, and IMO Frontier shouldn't entertain the idea at all. However, some more carrier layouts and other cosmetics would actually be very welcome at this point, and I think would more than suffice to be a nice purchasable item for those who wish to support Frontier and get something cool whilst doing so.
TL
R - Fleet Carrier for Arx? Absolutely not.Those using the slippery slope argument in regards to Frontier offering early access for new ships and the jump start packages are engaging in a logical fallacy. I'm not saying it couldn't become a slippery slope but the fallacious aspect is that it doesn't have to follow as a logical step at all, and presenting it so is misleading at best.
Also, the jumpstart packages being pay to win is just plain wrong at this point. However, I would say that offering a Fleet Carrier for Arx would qualify as pay to win, but even if they did that, how much Arx would it cost to justify the most massive and expensive end game ship in the game? $20-40 ain't cutting it. I'd say it would be approaching Star Citizen levels of price with a Fleet Carrier being priced around $500-$1000 to justify what you're getting, and if they skip the upkeep, then I'd definitely say go higher than that.
I think it would be a very bad move to offer a Fleet Carrier for Arx, and IMO Frontier shouldn't entertain the idea at all. However, some more carrier layouts and other cosmetics would actually be very welcome at this point, and I think would more than suffice to be a nice purchasable item for those who wish to support Frontier and get something cool whilst doing so.
TL
Boiling frog - Wikipedia
The boiling frog is an apologue describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats that arise gradually rather than suddenly.
In other words: Resist the beginnings...
I think if the upkeep serves any purpose it is to reduce the number of fleet carriers that are owned by people who don’t have enough time to play every day.
Fleet carriers are specifically for no-lifers, or more commonly, they are a semi-shared asset which unfortunately has to be owned and operated by a single commander.
They take up a lot of in-game real estate and have made the left hand panel a mess to use. The fewer in a system the better, and of the ones that are around, it should be people with a stake in the game world.
So what you're saying is that only people who don't have a life and can sit all day in front of the computer should have the options to own one? that's not a very good business model is it? Why do ARX exist then? this game is funded by backers, because there was not enough customers to fund the game when it was launched, it all comes down to money, no RL money, no game doesn't matter how many hours you spend in game grinding away. The P2W cliche is ridiculous, there is only one commodity in this game that is worth anything and that's skill, a good pilot in a cobra can take out a anaconda that has been proven many times, so P2W is just a strawman if you ask me.
Everyone who owns a FC carrier at the moment can log in and out whenever they want, the current business model is a fine one, it's only when people want to muck about with that is working perfectly well that it becomes a problem, and I'm not sure what your problem is, leave my FC alone, I shouldn't be subject to your game play desires!
I don't think Fleet Carriers should ever have been added to the game, I don't think they should be available for Arx now, and I don't think good business model/good product is in any way synonymous with good game.
This business model is always going to favor an increase in monitization. It's not a subscription based game, so there are few downsides to alienating those who weren't paying anyway. I they already have my money and I cannot spend any less than I am currently spending.
Early access to an in-game asset is an advantage and being able to shortcut gameplay hurdles (even ones that shouldn't exist) with player money pretty much defines P2W.
If this were the case, you wouldn't need Arx and wouldn't take issue with the amount of time required to do things.
P2W encompasses more than this narrow, overly literal, interpretation. Even if it didn't, two people of comparable skill could easily find the outcome of their contest comes down to who has the advantage of better in-game stuff...and there are certainly contests where an FC can provide significant advantages.
Anything that circumvents any of the gameplay barriers to our CMDR's ability to contribute to the setting creates an imbalance in one's favor. If that imbalance comes down to how much money one gave Frontier, I'm going to consider that pay-to-win.
How well the current system works is a matter of opinion, but Frontier certainly seems to be exploring new revenue models, which hints that they don't find their current financial performance ideal. And, until Frontier ceases to be the only source for this game, we're all subject to Fontier's profit driven desires as long as we play.
This business model is always going to favor an increase in monitization. It's not a subscription based game, so there are few downsides to alienating those who weren't paying anyway. I they already have my money and I cannot spend any less than I am currently spending.
Early access to an in-game asset is an advantage and being able to shortcut gameplay hurdles (even ones that shouldn't exist) with player money pretty much defines P2W.
If this were the case, you wouldn't need Arx and wouldn't take issue with the amount of time required to do things.
P2W encompasses more than this narrow, overly literal, interpretation. Even if it didn't, two people of comparable skill could easily find the outcome of their contest comes down to who has the advantage of better in-game stuff...and there are certainly contests where an FC can provide significant advantages.
Anything that circumvents any of the gameplay barriers to our CMDR's ability to contribute to the setting creates an imbalance in one's favor. If that imbalance comes down to how much money one gave Frontier, I'm going to consider that pay-to-win.
How well the current system works is a matter of opinion, but Frontier certainly seems to be exploring new revenue models, which hints that they don't find their current financial performance ideal. And, until Frontier ceases to be the only source for this game, we're all subject to Fontier's profit driven desires as long as we play.
FTFY.
Like you said, they're a business, and a publicly traded one at that. This isn't a zero-sum game where everything goes back into development... they're here to make profit.
That said, would be plain hilarious to see people drop ~$400 USD just for an FC.
Last edited:
You have just described me.
People have their own ways of defining things. Going by the term Pay to "Win", you don't win anything by getting a jumpstart no matter what anyone says.
That's the problem I do have a life and hence not the time to grind away hours to get stuff, when I play I do what I like for an hour or two and that is simply not enough in a game like Elite, then again maybe this is not for people like me I guess, or I should wait until I retire 100%
That being said some very kind Commander donated me the credit I need to get one so this discussion is more a general question regarding monetization in ED.
LOL Star Citizen I'm looking at you!!!
Couldn't have said it better myself I agree.
I don't care about your game play desires, this is not about you, you can continue to play as you like, I'm not taking your ball away babydoll I'm asking if I could buy one for real money instead of grinding hours away to get one, just like I bought the Mandalay ship
Last edited: