A plea for FD to focus next on balancing -maintenance- costs for larger ships

[BishopC]

Okay, thinking about the consequences of your proposed change :O

Okay, I have to admit, there is some scaling. I did the calculations again, and it is true, you have to work longer for the rebuy.
And then I thought what would happen if you take that away. Just like that, you make the rebuy for an A rated Anaconda so that you can earn the rebuy in 15 minutes.

It would be a slaughterfest! A griefers paradise! A non-stop player killing rampage!

As it is now, you think twice before you bring your expensive Conda or Python to a battle, because you know, it is a lot of work to earn the money for the repairs or the rebuy. But you also know, you can slaughter almost everything other players can throw at you. So you weigh your risk-reward, you ask yourself, is it worth it?

Now imagine you would need 15 minutes of trade for a rebuy.
We would have countless psychopathic player killers, but instead of throw away Eagles, in suicide Anacondas! Instead of the Suicide DumbfireFreagles in stations we would get suicide griefer Anacondas and Pythons. That's a surefire way to drive anyone into solo.

Really, making you work for your Anaconda's repair or rebuy was one of FD's best decisions! One more example for "This is well thought out by the developers, but the players can't see it."

 

[Belsameth]

Sure, the big ships need to be more expensive. With the SC nerf, the heat overspill and the nerf to the Pyhon (Not tested the heat yet, agree with the other nerfs) keeping one alive got a lot harder.
Fine, in itself but if losing it means hours of work why would you risk it in open?
There's a middle ground between an Anaconda Grief Fest and nobody daring to take out anything bigger than a Viper.

 

[darshu]

Okay, I have to admit, there is some scaling. I did the calculations again, and it is true, you have to work longer for the rebuy.
And then I thought what would happen if you take that away. Just like that, you make the rebuy for an A rated Anaconda so that you can earn the rebuy in 15 minutes.

It would be a slaughterfest! A griefers paradise! A non-stop player killing rampage!

As it is now, you think twice before you bring your expensive Conda or Python to a battle, because you know, it is a lot of work to earn the money for the repairs or the rebuy. But you also know, you can slaughter almost everything other players can throw at you. So you weigh your risk-reward, you ask yourself, is it worth it?

Now imagine you would need 15 minutes of trade for a rebuy.
We would have countless psychopathic player killers, but instead of throw away Eagles, in suicide Anacondas! Instead of the Suicide DumbfireFreagles in stations we would get suicide griefer Anacondas and Pythons. That's a surefire way to drive anyone into solo.

Really, making you work for your Anaconda was one of FD's best decisions! One more example for "This is well thought out by the developers, but the players can't see it."

If a player earns a ship it's their right to use it however they want. That IS how this game was designed and they have stated it is intentional. Players killing other players will be punished via game mechanics. If you feel the current punishment is not harsh enough that's a different subject. If they are exploiting a game mechanic in a unintended way you can report them and they will be dealt with accordingly but fear of another player killing you does not justify forcing many players into vipers and cobras because they dont want to be forced into trading for a extended amount of time every time they want to participate in pvp.
It would allow both pirates and bounty hunters who earn ships that cost a lot of credits to be able to afford to run them. Balancing the game in a way that hurts diversity is never a good idea imo..

 

[BishopC]

Sure, the big ships need to be more expensive. With the SC nerf, the heat overspill and the nerf to the Pyhon (Not tested the heat yet, agree with the other nerfs) keeping one alive got a lot harder.
Fine, in itself but if losing it means hours of work why would you risk it in open?
There's a middle ground between an Anaconda Grief Fest and nobody daring to take out anything bigger than a Viper.

The Python is still a beast. There are 2 things that are a threat to a Python in PvP 1vs1 in 1.1: Another Python or an Anaconda.
I fly Python, and the other members of my group fly Anaconda, and we are doing that for weeks now in open. And we are all doing some nice profits. Also, no sane pirate is attacking us. And the insane ones go "poof" in seconds (also, if you attack one of my group too often, you would likely find yourself wedged between 3 Condas, at least 2 Pythons and a number of smaller ships).
If I could make the rebuy in an less than an hour, even I would think about some senseless killing spree, and I am one of the nice guys (okay, I wouldn't think about it, that's not my style, but there are so many crazy people out there...).

 

[brumster]

What he said ^^ at the moment, the repercussions of your actions are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. The game is out of whack in terms of balance at so many levels.

I don't want players earning Anacondas in 15 minutes. I doubt anyone does really. But if I've put the hard work in to get my Anaconda, I want to at least be able to maintain it; so make it such that there is the possibility to earn large amounts of cash to run it. This could only be achievable IN the Anaconda, for example some high profile hunter/killer missions that you'd just have no chance in anything else (or are only exposed to players in such high-end ships). Instead of forcing an Anaconda player to resort to a certain playstyle - probably trade grinding being the only practical approach right now.

I thought it was "play it your way"? Not "play it your way right up until you get to an Anaconda, then you're kinda forced into a certain gameplay style if you want to keep it".

Higher earnings for large ship pilots, or cheaper running costs, I'm easy either way. Actually, I really don't give a hoot, I'm nowhere near it and don't intend to be

 

[BishopC]

If a player earns a ship it's their right to use it however they want. That IS how this game was designed and they have stated it is intentional. Players killing other players will be punished via game mechanics. If you feel the current punishment is not harsh enough that's a different subject. [...]
It would allow both pirates and bounty hunters to earn ships that cost a lot of credits to be able to afford to actually run them. Balancing the game in a way that hurts diversity is never a good idea imo..

IMHO, you can use your ship the way you want it. Take your Annie out and pirate. No one is stopping you. THAT'S the way the game is designed right now. You think that is not intentional? Don't you think that your perception is a little selective? My fellow pilot, that the big ships are expensive to maintain and repair is a game mechanic. David Braben always stated there is a preferred way to play ED, and it is not "I have the best ship and murder everyone".

 

[Mohrgan]

It is simply self-serving to attempt to create a whole new metric out of wishes. Large ships have a large cost, their maintenance should cost a bunch too. Currently the running costs are calculated from the purchase cost of each ship. There is no better way to determine what is should cost to run any ship.
:
Trying to introduce a TTR standard based on earning potential is impossible, no one plays the same. It has to be based off of something hard and fast. The cost of the ship.
:
Big ships cost a lot, and they should cost a lot to run. Why should FD care what sized ships people fly? Why should FD feel the need to encourage players in one ship or another? You want the costs to come down, so you feel the TTR is good, because you'll pay less, not because it makes sense that time is the basic factor in fairness.

 

[BigC208]

When I started late December my goal was to work my way up through the ships as a trader and take little side trips doing combat and exploring. This worked fine until I traded my t6 for an Asp. Repair cost suddenly went through the roof. No more combat but explored a bit for little financial reward. Quickly traded my way up to a t7 and the cost picture looked a bit better. When I got a 282t trader Python the cost picture for (mostly) battle damage went ballistic again. Basically for me to be able to afford the Python in a PvP combat role I need to do the following: Grind my way to a T9, max it's cargo capacity out and grind until I have enough money to pay for a Python that can now be fitted for combat without worries about bills when damage occurs. Sounds a bit like real life to me. You need a healthy economy to be able to afford a strong military.


Been away for work this week so not updated to 1.1 yet. Hope the Python is not porked to the point of forgetting about it as a combat ship. If that has happened I'll disarm it completely and grind on until I have enough for a T9 and go to part time smuggling and piracy in a souped up MKIII in a galaxy far away. Just having fun wreaking havoc upon unsuspecting traders. Running the T9 a couple of hours a week in Solo to make ends meet and switch to PvP in the MKIII. Explorer Asp can shuttle me between the T9 and MKIII so I don't become wanted in my trade route Solar System. Can't wait to get home.....

 

[Yokai]

I think that's a true statement, but the OPs assumption was that *every* ship is a trade ship and that cr/t/hr was therefore a valid metric by which to judge them. I think that approach misses the point, which is that some ships are not used for trade and will not earn as much as if they were. Nobody trying to min/max cr/hr is going to buy a Viper, nobody.

It is a metric to use. Whichever metric you use tho, combat, trading, exploring or a combination comes down to the same thing.
I can rebuy my Viper with the income of not even an hour bounty hunting at he NAV. My Pyhon on, on the other hand, costs more when I have a mere 20% hull damage.

@Belsameth has the right of it (in response to @starry's point). Regardless of how you earn your money, it takes time to earn that money. Currently trading earns the most money in the least time, but the scaling percentages are _exactly_ the same if you use some other money-making path besides trading. If all three ships in my example earned their money by doing only BB missions or only BH or only interdicting other players or whatever, the _relative_ difference in "time to recoup the buyback cost" would be exactly the same.

And I agree totally with the _other_ proposed solution to address scaling, posed by others in the thread:

* You can scale by adjusting the replacement costs to produce a flatter maintenance curve, OR
* You can scale by adjusting the earning potential of larger ships, which also produces a flatter maintenance curve.

Either way, the problem is the current steepness of the maintenance curve. It should be a steep progression curve to move up into bigger, more "powerful" ships, but the curve to maintain ships should be similar for everyone regardless of ship size. Yes, there should be a _little_slope, but ultimately it's disincentive to any real diversity or player longevity if the maintenance curve for larger ships is exactly as steep as the progression curve.

 

[darshu]

IMHO, you can use your ship the way you want it. Take your Annie out and pirate. No one is stopping you. THAT'S the way the game is designed right now. You think that is not intentional? Don't you think that your perception is a little selective? My fellow pilot, that the big ships are expensive to maintain and repair is a game mechanic. David Braben always stated there is a preferred way to play ED, and it is not "I have the best ship and murder everyone".

I'm pretty sure the motto is something like "Play how you want to". I'm not talking about best ships, I'm talking about ship diversity and that includes all ships. The diversity of what we see in pvp is being hurt by the cost of running. A t9 turret boat as a mobile defense platform isn't going to be game breaking in pvp nor will a pirate flying a clipper for its speed and cargo space. Those are things that will continue to be rare because its not financially efficient but it would be fun to do and see. It would be a much more diverse game. Im sure players would come up with some clever loadouts even with the sparse amount of ships and equipment we have at the moment. Should we really be trying to limit that kind of gameplay?

 

[Mohrgan]

What he said ^^ at the moment, the repercussions of your actions are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. The game is out of whack in terms of balance at so many levels.

I don't want players earning Anacondas in 15 minutes. I doubt anyone does really. But if I've put the hard work in to get my Anaconda, I want to at least be able to maintain it; so make it such that there is the possibility to earn large amounts of cash to run it. This could only be achievable IN the Anaconda, for example some high profile hunter/killer missions that you'd just have no chance in anything else (or are only exposed to players in such high-end ships). Instead of forcing an Anaconda player to resort to a certain playstyle - probably trade grinding being the only practical approach right now.

I thought it was "play it your way"? Not "play it your way right up until you get to an Anaconda, then you're kinda forced into a certain gameplay style if you want to keep it".

Higher earnings for large ship pilots, or cheaper running costs, I'm easy either way. Actually, I really don't give a hoot, I'm nowhere near it and don't intend to be

"Play it your way" doesn't include a promise to make it affordable. The 'play your way' means find the way you enjoy progressing. It's not some promise that the Dev's have to make everything easily accessible. This whole idea that the running costs of large ships need to allow for any kind of game play is silly. You had to trade to afford that ship, what makes you think you won't have to trade some to keep it running.

 

[TykensRift]

The real problem is that there isn't a better way to make money with bigger ships. You just do the same activities you do in smaller ones for a slightly larger payout. The insurance costs are a linear scale across all ship classes.

There are no real big payout opportunities as you move up to the highest class ships.

mostly that relates to the non-scaling missions.

 

[darshu]

"Play it your way" doesn't include a promise to make it affordable. The 'play your way' means find the way you enjoy progressing. It's not some promise that the Dev's have to make everything easily accessible. This whole idea that the running costs of large ships need to allow for any kind of game play is silly. You had to trade to afford that ship, what makes you think you won't have to trade some to keep it running.

I would hardly call the buying large ships affordable and no one is suggesting a large ships insurance cost as much as a vipers insurance but currently the time needed to rebuy a large ship is hugely disproportionate to the time needed to buy the ships that the majority of player fly in pvp at the moment and it will continue to be the same bland viper/cobra fest with some niche players who are willing to play the game 2x as much or more to fly something other then what the masses are in. The current cost of running the larger ships is only going to continue to hurt pvp diversity. I for one would like to see something other then vipers and cobras 90% of the time. Vipers and Cobras will always be viable ships and nothing to shake a stick at especially in wings but but should they really be the only good option for people who don't want to continue spend the majority of thier time in game trading just to be able to die a few times in pvp?

 

[Skip Intro]

I would hardly call the buying large ships affordable and no one is suggesting a large ships insurance cost as much as a vipers insurance but currently the time needed to rebuy a large ship is hugely disproportionate to the time needed to buy the ships that the majority of player fly in pvp at the moment and it will continue to be the same bland viper/cobra fest with some niche players who are willing to play the game 2x as much or more to fly something other then what the masses are in. The current cost of running the larger ships is only going to continue to hurt pvp diversity. I for one would like to see something other then vipers and cobras 90% of the time.

Game does not revolve around PvP.

 

[Phier]

keeping one alive got a lot harder.

There never was much a threat to start with. Bounty hunting in my Python with D rated shields I only used a shield cell once.

 

[IAM GROOT]

The recent 1.1 combat balance changes were a step in the right direction, in that a small viper cannot now brainlessly kill an Anaconda, Python, etc. This has the positive effect of making larger ships more desirable, whereas before there was no compelling reason to move into larger ship classes at all (from a min-max combat perspective).

However, there remains one incredibly strong disincentive to move up into larger ship classes, and that is the completely egregious maintenance costs that become astronomical with each larger ship.

A basic tenet of cost balancing should be "It should take a lot of money/time to initially acquire a larger ship, but once you're in that new ship, your ongoing maintenance costs should be roughly equal to every other ship regardless of size".

It already takes a LOT of grinding to move into the T7/Clipper/Python range, and quite a bit more to move into the T9/Anaconda range. That should be the only real pain point: moving up into the next larger ship you want. But something is VERY wrong when a Viper or Cobra or (yes, even) a Asp pilot can shrug off complete destruction of their ship and recoup the cost with at most 1 or 2 sales of a cargo hold, versus the situation as it is today for players in T7 and above, where even partial hull damage can require 2 hours of trade grinding to recoup the loss!

I'm a damn good trader. I can grind 16,000 cr/ton/hour non-stop. That's roughly 633,000 credits per 9 minutes, on average. I run a 272-ton "trader with teeth" Python.
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=305,5TE5TQ5TQ4yS5Rs01Q3wK,2-B69Y7_6QB69Y8I,0AA0AA0AA08c08c0727Pc4zM2Uc
(Don't pay too much attention to my weapon loadout: they're cheap and I'm experimenting)

If I were to lose my ship entirely, that's 7.4 MILLION cr just to rebuy the ship. That's 1.7 hours of solid, intensive trade grinding at max cash flow possible.

Now compare that figure (which is WAY cheaper than for an A-class Anaconda) with:

A-class Viper: 137 THOUSAND cr to rebuy. I can sell one single load of cargo in the Python and earn enough to do this twice over.
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=30M,7u57u55QH5QH3we01Q,2-4s4s4s3I4s4s3c,05U7Pc7dq4wO

I'm certainly not the only one to see the HUGE disincentive here. If a viper costs 137K to rebuy, honestly a Python should cost at most 250K to rebuy. An Anaconda should cost at most 400K to rebuy. And everything else should be scaled in between those two points for a relatively flat maintenance curve.

This must be the "I want my cake and eat it" thread.
If I may, are you freaking serious?
It's like the BMW owner who won't buy the Ford and then complains because the parts cost more than the Ford.
Don't buy the Anaconda if you can't afford the insurance and maintenance, live to your means otherwise run the risk of losing everything, that's the way of the world

 

[darshu]

Game does not revolve around PvP.

And the sky is blue what's your point? the game doesn't revolve around bounty hunting, exploring or mining should they not seek to improve those aspects of the game? Players are simply asking to be able to fly larger ships into pvp without having to sell their children into slavery. The diversity in pvp is hurting at the moment because the TIME punishment for flying a large ship is much greater then flying a viper. there is nothing wrong with a viper or a cobra and when wings come out they will be decimating the battlefields against all ships but the current setup penalizes any kind of diversity.

 

[Im_Lost]

Hmm yea, some ships are cheaper to self destruct than repair after a point.

Repair costs on everything more expensive than a cobra need looking at because some are just silly.

 

[Sapient6]

And the sky is blue what's your point? the game doesn't revolve around bounty hunting, exploring or mining should they not seek to improve those aspects of the game? Players are simply asking to be able to fly larger ships into pvp without having to sell their children into slavery.

Well hold up there... that could be a pretty decent money making mechanism...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Hmm yea, some ships are cheaper to self destruct than repair after a point.

Repair costs on everything more expensive than a cobra need looking at because some are just silly.

Sssshh, not so loud. My greatest fear here is that they'll jack up the rebuy cost rather than adjusting the repair price downward.

 

[PotatoOverdose]

Owning a big expensive ship doesn't entitle you to flying the big expensive ship for cheap. If you don't want to have high running costs you can either downgrade modules (going from A to D modules will cut your rebuy by more than half) or downgrading your combat ship (going from an A grade python to an A grade asp will lower your rebuy by 7 million credits).

Just because you could afford to buy a python once doesn't give you the right to throw it into harms way again and again without consequence.