Keep Cheap Ships Relevant with More Internal Upgrades

[Sewer Shark]

Thank you Cmdr Beeston for the idea.

The Eagle. The Viper. The Sidewinder. The Cobra. Four ships that, once you make your first couple of million, become completely obsolete, outclassed entirely by everything beyond them. The one caveat being the Cobra, which is still useful for running Rares and some trading, but useless for combat.

Unfortunately, the obsolescence removes variety and makes the game duller as a consequence. I have no reason anymore to fly my Viper, no reason to buy paint or decals for it or any of the other low-tier ships. Some players might not think this is a problem. Cheap ships should be outclassed by more expensive ships, they say! Well, screw that.

The Solution: Give all ships, but primarily the cheaper ships, more and increasingly expensive Internal Upgrades that allow them to perform at levels on par with fully-fitted Vultures and Fer-De-Lances (and other combat-fit vessels) or whatever the Next Big Thing becomes. Bigger, beefier power-plants, more thrusters, better Power distributers. Let me pour millions into my Eagle or Viper and trick it out into a crazy beast of a little fighter. Diversify weapons so lasers aren't the best weapon vs everything, so that (for example) multicannons are ideal for smaller fighters while torpedos and plasma are ideal for the Big Stuff. Add some level of choice and strategy to a loadout beyond "A-rated everything and the biggest Beams I can fit".

Make me want to buy those dumb Sidewinder paintjobs, FD.

 

[Lasse B.]

Better is the enemy of good. Who'd drive an old 1926 Ford Model T for business reasons today?

PS:
It would be nice though if FD really pulled off obsolescence. As ships get older they become cheaper and eventually replace the starter ship. Eventually the oldest ships could only be bought at used ship dealers and in varying condition.

 

[Sewer Shark]

Better is the enemy of good. Who'd drive an old 1926 Ford Model T for business reasons today?

Irrelevant.

 

[Lasse B.]

Perhaps the game being a simulation is irrelevant as well.

 

[Magic Man]

You then end up the same thing. You end up with a fully upgraded Viper being outclassed by a fully upgraded higher tier ship - that's the way it is and should be.

If everything was buffed to compete fairly with everything else then things become stale - what becomes the point of achieving the higher tier ships if a buffed lower tier can compete evenly with it.

The lower tier ships are that. Lower tier. Lower costs all around, a step on the ladder. Nothing wrong if you want to keep flying them but just because you do doesn't mean they have to be buffed to still compete with the higher tier ships.

Instead, they should come into their own in certain circumstances. Certain missions require a smaller ship to sneak through etc.

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

PS:
It would be nice though if FD really pulled off obsolescence. As ships get older they become cheaper and eventually replace the starter ship. Eventually the oldest ships could only be bought at used ship dealers and in varying condition.

Sounds good. Perhaps newer models of the older ships.

 

[Sewer Shark]

Perhaps the game being a simulation is irrelevant as well.

Lol if you think this game is a simulation of anything.

The reason your analogy is irrelevant is because this is a game in which we have imagined spaceships for the purposes of fun, which are not a simulation but rather arbitrary constructs purposely defined for whatever reason FD desired. It has jack all to do with the technological progress of automobiles.

You might as well compare unicorns to horses and ask why anyone rides a donkey. Ironically, this too is a terrible and irrelevant analogy.

You then end up the same thing. You end up with a fully upgraded Viper being outclassed by a fully upgraded higher tier ship - that's the way it is and should be.

If everything was buffed to compete fairly with everything else then things become stale - what becomes the point of achieving the higher tier ships if a buffed lower tier can compete evenly with it.

The lower tier ships are that. Lower tier. Lower costs all around, a step on the ladder. Nothing wrong if you want to keep flying them but just because you do doesn't mean they have to be buffed to still compete with the higher tier ships.

Instead, they should come into their own in certain circumstances. Certain missions require a smaller ship to sneak through etc.

So, perhaps, arbitrarily cap all ship performance at the top level of A-fitted Whatever, and allow cheaper ships to be invested in until monetary and performance parity is reached. Doesn't have to be exactly equal, obviously, but let's put it in the ballpark because that's more fun.

And if arbitrary gameyness is anathema to you, just imagine something about "the bleeding edge of technological performance can go no further than X megawatts yadda yadda...".

The concept of a Sleeper is not a new one.

 

[Magic Man]

Ironically, this too is a terrible and irrelevant analogy.

Someone thinks highly of themselves don't they...

 

[Sewer Shark]

Someone thinks highly of themselves don't they...

Calling my own analogy of an analogy bad means I think highly of myself?

Ok.

 

[Lasse B.]

Lol if you think this game is a simulation of anything.

So what is it then? It's certainly not knitting with grandma on Sunday afternoon.

The reason your analogy is irrelevant is because this is a game in which we have imagined spaceships for the purposes of fun, which are not a simulation but rather arbitrary constructs purposely defined for whatever reason FD desired. It has jack all to do with the technological progress of automobiles.

True, and yet, in the world of Elite Dangerous, the more a ship costs the more advanced thus capable it usually is. The Sidewinder is superseded by the Cobra, the Eagle is superseded by the Vulture and the Type 6 is superseded by the Type 7.

You might as well compare unicorns to horses and ask why anyone rides a donkey. Ironically, this too is a terrible and irrelevant analogy.

Your analogy holds up for the most part. Unicorns are for story telling, horses for speed and donkeys for loads. Analog to these animals we have the Cobra for speed, the Type 9 for loads but actually no fairy tales to wrap any of the ships in to extend their usefulness.

Although I do see how upgrading ships reduces diversity in the long run, some ships are just stepping stones to be done away with if a player chooses to upgrade and the credits allow to do so. Alternatively, perhaps FD could make it so that ship manufacturers release upgraded versions of their ships once in a while. The Cobra MK IV perhaps or the Sidewinder 2. That would at least be in compliance with established lore and previous games.

 

[Defacto]

I understand the problem that you're trying to solve, but I would actually think that it is better to go complete the other way:

How about this: Remove ratings for modules. You still have class sizes, and modules can have different attributes that sidegrade. The more extreme the sidegrade, the higher the price.

For the ships, I would say that the best way to make them all relevant (and they should be, I don't think that any ship, not even the Sidewinder, should have being a stepping stone for its sole purpose) is to keep introducing mechanics and systems, increasing the variation in the ships' abilities, give everything a niche. Sidewinder could be great as a stealthy and pretty speedy courier/scout, but in order for that role to even exist to fill, we need an ingame context where it would be useful to have a small, stealthy, speedy ship. How do we get that? We make getting illegal goods through customs more difficult, complex and rewarding, and we increase the importance of the stealth/heat/sensor systems in combat.

If we make NPC piracy a real danger, then there will be a much larger niche role to fill for armed traders, like the Python. If we make the markets in the large core worlds more competitive and harder to profit from, there'll be more need for a large and cost-efficent freighter.

If we have a proper wear and tear-system, where reaching far into unpopulated space is hard and dangerous, there's a niche role for ships that are robust and capable of carrying good supplies and survival equipment.

 

[Sewer Shark]

So what is it then? It's certainly not knitting with grandma on Sunday afternoon.

It's a Space Trading/Combat Game. Any devoted Trader will tell you that there is no real simulation behind the "market" in this game, it's about as deep as a puddle. The spaceflight isn't a simulation, for reasons like "There is no 'top speed' in space" and the lack of gravity to name a few. The background Influence and War mechanics were only recently automated in 1.2. Some stellar phenomena are "simulated" to some degree, like black hole lensing, but that hardly qualifies the entire game as a simulation any more than simulated bullet drop qualifies Battlefield as a War Simulator.

Although I do see how upgrading ships reduces diversity in the long run, I prefer the Status Quo.

I've summarized the rest of your post because while you admit you see the problem, all you've done is state how things currently are, as if that were reason enough to not change anything.

I understand the problem that you're trying to solve, but I would actually think that it is better to go complete the other way:

How about this: Remove ratings for modules. You still have class sizes, and modules can have different attributes that sidegrade. The more extreme the sidegrade, the higher the price.

For the ships, I would say that the best way to make them all relevant (and they should be, I don't think that any ship, not even the Sidewinder, should have being a stepping stone for its sole purpose) is to keep introducing mechanics and systems, increasing the variation in the ships' abilities, give everything a niche. Sidewinder could be great as a stealthy and pretty speedy courier/scout, but in order for that role to even exist to fill, we need an ingame context where it would be useful to have a small, stealthy, speedy ship. How do we get that? We make getting illegal goods through customs more difficult, complex and rewarding, and we increase the importance of the stealth/heat/sensor systems in combat.

If we make NPC piracy a real danger, then there will be a much larger niche role to fill for armed traders, like the Python. If we make the markets in the large core worlds more competitive and harder to profit from, there'll be more need for a large and cost-efficent freighter.

If we have a proper wear and tear-system, where reaching far into unpopulated space is hard and dangerous, there's a niche role for ships that are robust and capable of carrying good supplies and survival equipment.

This suggestion seems good to me, though yeah if we're gonna have Niche Ships we're going to need Niches to put them in first, whereas my proposal works right out of the box. I am not wedded to any particular system of Ship Mechanics, though, so long as ships are never nothing more than disposable stepping-stones to be wadded up and tossed aside as if the only purpose of this game was "Progression" up an arbitrary Ship List. Or as if people would stop playing without the "Incentive" of progression, because if that's the case, well, your game is bad and you're in a deep hole already. As long as we encourage diversity and avoid obsolescence for its own sake, I'm probably on board.

My proposed solution, at least, heads off the "But I paid more so I should win!" argument at the pass, but apparently we can't have Nice Things because Reasons.

 

[wstephenson]

If it were possible to pimp small ships to keep them competitive, why wouldn't it be possible to pimp large ships too, and continue to out-class small ships? I'm glad Defacto has reached the same small == hard-to-spot conclusion I did in the other thread. Frontier have already given a nod to this by making tiddlers less likely to get scanned by authorities, now they should double down on the mechanic.

Conversely, if it were up to me, I would increase running costs for big ships again. It feels like repair and ship maintenance is now negligible to everyone. And I'd make repairing to 100% health eye-wateringly expensive.

And introduce more small ships. Can't wait to put a Gecko, Mamba and Krait in my fleet. The universe needs more lunatic terriers snapping at everyone's heels.

 

[Mephane]

Conversely, if it were up to me, I would increase running costs for big ships again. It feels like repair and ship maintenance is now negligible to everyone. And I'd make repairing to 100% health eye-wateringly expensive.

The only thing that would achieve is to reinstate the formula "trade to finance combat".

 

[Lasse B.]

It's a Space Trading/Combat Game.

Great, you've described the setting, what it's about and the current technical limitations. Now please also tell me what you think what kind of game this is.

What you suggest looks a bit like

It just doesn't make any sense at all from an economic point of view. No manufacturer would mass produce expensive high end modules for ships that given their price are geared towards less solvent customers. Any such module would need to be hand crafted or produced in very limited amounts, thus would be very rare and even more expensive, which could then attract another kind of clientele: Multi-millionaires who are looking to upgrade their fleet. But it wouldn't stop there. If multi-millionaires were looking to enhance cheaper ships, they absolutely would also be interested in enhancing pricier ships as well thus generating demand.

 

[InMemoriamSirocco]

The Eagle and Sidewinder are the only two craft in the game which become obsolete after a certain point. Both are starter level ships. The Eagle is even described as an old fashioned model that has been phased out by the military.

Both are cheap (you even get the Sidewinder for free) which is their main advantage.

The Hauler and Adder are good for entry level trading but remain two of the best choices for explorers long after one has aquired enough funds for larger freighters.

The Viper remains the best anti-fighter craft (= interceptor) of the game. Even with the Vulture recently added in.

It is also one of the best racers in the game. I would love to see dedicated race tracks for multiplayer racing in asteroid fields or inside old derelict station docking cylinders, so players could use their cheap Eagles, free Sidewinders and their fast Vipers and Cobras for racing. Racing would be a fun addition to the in game acitvities possible for pilots.

 

[Sewer Shark]

Great, you've described the setting, what it's about and the current technical limitations. Now please also tell me what you think what kind of game this is.

It's an Open-World Action game with Sandbox elements, only we don't even get a toy bucket or shovel. Is Call of Duty a simulation of Advanced Warfare, too?

It just doesn't make any sense at all from an economic point of view. No manufacturer would mass produce expensive high end modules for ships that given their price are geared towards less solvent customers. Any such module would need to be hand crafted or produced in very limited amounts, thus would be very rare and even more expensive, which could then attract another kind of clientele: Multi-millionaires who are looking to upgrade their fleet. But it wouldn't stop there. If multi-millionaires were looking to enhance cheaper ships, they absolutely would also be interested in enhancing pricier ships as well thus generating demand.

I don't care if you can whip up meaningless "immersive" reasons to maintain the status quo. They mean jack all when it comes to gameplay changes. It's fluff. It is not a thing of substance.

Do you have anyreal reasons to back up your position or is it all based on tummy-feels?

If it were possible to pimp small ships to keep them competitive, why wouldn't it be possible to pimp large ships too, and continue to out-class small ships?

I already answered that question in an earlier post.

 

[Lasse B.]

It's an Open-World Action game with Sandbox elements, only we don't even get a toy bucket or shovel. Is Call of Duty a simulation of Advanced Warfare, too?

I wouldn't know since I don't play shooters.

I don't care if you can whip up meaningless "immersive" reasons to maintain the status quo.

So the developers should go against their own design documents, against the points they make when discussing design decisions, the path they currently are on with development and the ultimate vision they have for the game, just because you say so.

Let me quote someone from before:

Someone thinks highly of themselves don't they...

 

[Sewer Shark]

So the developers should go against their own design documents, against the points they make when discussing design decisions, the path they currently are on with development and the ultimate vision they have for the game, just because you say so.

Please quote for me where the developers stated "We think some ships should be nothing more than disposable stepping-stones, never to be flown again once you've progressed past them." This is the Suggestion forum, guy. I'm here to make a suggestion in order to increase the choices available within the game. All you've given me is "I Aggressively Desire the Status Quo" with no supporting argument.

Also since you didn't answer the follow-up question, I am going to assume your answer is "No, I am basing this all on tummy-feels".

---

Edit: Look, let me show you what I mean when I say your statements are meaningless and have no substance.

So the developers should go against their own design documents, against the points they make when discussing design decisions, the path they currently are on with development and the ultimate vision they have for the game, just because you say so.

You see this quote? I could, literally, copy-paste it into any Suggestion thread or post about changing any part of the game, and I wouldn't ever need to edit any part of it. It is made of nothing but pure Obstructionism for no purpose other than to obstruct. There is no meat there, there is no argument beyond "No." You've not discussed the merits of obsolescence beyond it for its own sake, you've made no counter-point, you've said nothing.

 

[Lasse B.]

Selective perception on your part, otherwise you would have read and thought about the following:

Alternatively, perhaps FD could make it so that ship manufacturers release upgraded versions of their ships once in a while. The Cobra MK IV perhaps or the Sidewinder 2. That would at least be in compliance with established lore and previous games.

 

[Distance]

I would like to see different versions of the Eagle and Viper with the exact same internal slots but with the ability to fit a large power plant. Having those ships without their inherent power issues would make them able to hold their own later in the game.